Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Tom Cox: I am a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe and the rapporteur of its social, health and family affairs committee, which is preparing a report on the dangers of asbestos to workers and to the environment. That is why I raise the matter on this motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has been active in the House on the issue of asbestos: he recently secured a debate on the subject. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), has been supportive, and in June this year, Lord Howie introduced a debate on asbestos in the other place. I welcome the interest shown by Parliament in this issue since the election.
Medical reports show the serious effects that are suffered by people who have worked with asbestos. Sadly, it causes a large number of deaths. The Construction Safety Campaign estimates that about 3,500 people die every year as a result of working with asbestos. People are deeply concerned: they have a fear of contact with asbestos when it is exposed in housing estates, schools, hospitals and offices. Those concerns are voiced in many other countries.
The Council of Europe is the largest political assembly in Europe, with 40 member states. Although the western European members have expressed their deep concern, the newer members from eastern Europe are sadly only now learning of the dangers of working with asbestos and the effects that it has on the environment. There is clear evidence that the safeguards that we and many other countries have are not always applied in the new member states of the Council of Europe.
The United Kingdom, especially with a Labour Government, can show by its record the leadership that should be followed by all member states of the Council Europe over this highly dangerous material. Materials containing asbestos, particularly building materials, have been imported into this country from eastern European countries. The criticism and complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and I have is that those materials are often poorly labelled. They are often much cheaper than products that are made in this country, and there is no clear indication that they contain asbestos. The Council of Europe report calls for all materials to be properly labelled.
Those of us who want a complete ban on such material have been greatly helped by the French Government, who have imposed a complete ban on asbestos in France. Many other European countries, especially in Scandinavia, have also been very supportive. Some countries, of which Canada is one, are campaigning hard to ensure that no proper restrictions are placed on the use of asbestos. At a meeting that I attended in Strasbourg, some representatives of those countries told me that the type of asbestos now in use is no longer dangerous if properly used. That did not impress me; nor does it impress medical experts or the Health and Safety Executive.
We seek a complete ban on any materials that contain asbestos. There are substitutes, for which there is a market, and they are not expensive to produce. Some British companies use alternatives, and I welcome their action and support. I would welcome the Government's full support for the Council of Europe recommendations. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to say that, as legislation tightens on the use of asbestos in Europe, unscrupulous companies and individuals will not be allowed to export it to third-world countries which would not be fully aware of the enormous dangers that asbestos poses to people and the environment.
Asbestos and its uses, its removal from buildings and the protection that must be provided for people who work with it, are well known, but there are still reports of abuses. That is why many of us, in this country and in many others, have called for the material to be banned. That view is supported by many organisations, overwhelmingly by medical opinion, and by many trade unions.
I pay tribute to my trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, and also to the GMB Union. I am delighted that all unions support the action we seek. I look to the Government to strengthen legislation on action against those who put workers and communities at risk. Plainly, there are such people in this country.
In January, we take over the presidency of the European Union. The European Parliament supports the work on asbestos that is being carried out by the Council of Europe. They are two different political organisations, but they interrelate on that work. I look to our Government and Prime Minister to place this country in the forefront in seeking action, and to lead the campaign in Europe against asbestos. A successful conclusion to that campaign could be one of the major achievements of our presidency, and it would be warmly welcomed by all those who value the health and safety of working people and our environment.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for the detailed and dedicated work that he has described. My constituents are much more sympathetic to his cause than to the cause of banning beef on the bone, about which they are deeply outraged.
I pay tribute to many people in my constituency for their enormous effort in promoting plans to create a new community hospital in Farnham for the 21st century. For some years, there has been deep uncertainty and unhappiness about Farnham hospital's appropriate role. As in many parts of the country, in my area there has


been major investment in district general hospitals, in Guildford and Frimley. There are now magnificent state-of-the-art hospitals providing care for which people would previously have had to travel to London. However, they left a question mark over the role and nature of community hospitals. As general practitioners provide ever-rising standards of care, how should the purpose of such hospitals be identified?
Farnham hospital used to have 150 beds. It was unrealistic to fight many of the changes because we knew that fashions in modern medicine require centres of excellence to serve large populations. A year ago, there were plans for a new hospital, but they did not come to fruition.
After much uncertainty, and even the suggestion that it should be a bedless hospital, I am delighted to report that, following the combination of the two local health authorities, the local trust, the community health council and action teams worked together in a constructive, enlightened and productive manner to formulate proposals which mean that there may be a new 40-bed hospital at Farnham, a new health centre to incorporate local GPs, all of whom are fiercely independent but were working in totally inadequate, cramped accommodation.
There will be a new nursing home for the elderly and mentally infirm, a facility for which there is a growing need. There will also be a large range of out-patient, day hospital and diagnostic services. Above all, a mix of rehabilitation, extended care and stroke care will be provided at the new community hospital, although that is subject to further discussions by the health authorities and those most directly involved. Such facilities are a model for constructive and open discussion.
Farnham hospital lies between North and Mid-Hampshire health authority and West Surrey health authority, and has faced particular difficulties. Over the years, local people have been keen to support the changes at Frimley. They had to accept the loss of Cambridge military hospital at Aldershot, and it is now Farnham's turn to resolve the outstanding uncertainty. I hope that the community health council will support the proposals when they are formally published for the three-month consultation period, so that action for a clear future can be resolved.
It is easy tospeak about health authorities, trusts and community health councils behaving adversely, furtively and incompetently—the negative stories always outweigh the good ones—but in this instance I pay warm tribute to the community health council, to Nicholas Buchanan, to Dr. Shipp at the health forum, and to the hospital action team which is chaired by the local curate. Rather than being destructive, irresponsible and scaremongering, they have been determined to secure the outcome that they most wish. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), is also to have a new 24-bed community hospital at Fleet.
There are some outstanding issues. First, the new trust by which Farnham hospital will be managed seeks a new chairman. I hope that the merger of the trusts, which is currently the subject of consultation, will be approved, thus putting mental health services alongside community services.
In the context of the appointment of that chairman, I must voice the deep concern that has been expressed by many hon. Members over the reprehensible way in which the new Government have been handling health authority appointments. I have repeatedly asked the Secretary of State for Health for clarification, and have repeatedly raised with him the insult and offence that have been caused to people who for many years served the health service with great dedication and commitment. Sometimes they were not informed and did not know that they were not to be reappointed, until their successors telephoned them.
Ann Galbraith, a Newcastle trust chairman, represented the health service on the citizens charter panel. She did not know that she was not to be reappointed until her successor telephoned her. That is totally unacceptable. Angela Sealey, the chairman of North and Mid Hampshire health authority, who took forward the changes in Hampshire and incorporated the services from the Cambridge military hospital, has also not been reappointed.
Helen Gardiner, the chairman of Surrey ambulance service, came to an extremely troubled service that was suffering from a great deal of unrest and low morale, and turned it around. The service is now investing in the future, but she, too, has not been reappointed. There is deep alarm in both Frimley and Guildford that two exceptional chairmen—Alison Kinloch and Colston Herbert—may suffer from the same vengeful approach unless their colleagues raise the matter urgently.

Mr. Ken Purchase: What a disgrace.

Mrs. Bottomley: I believe that it is a disgrace. When I was Secretary of State for Health, I was responsible for the appointment of Helene Hayman, Margaret Jay, Baroness Dean, Julia Neuberger and Baroness Thomas, because I was determined that people of all political parties, or of none, who were committed to the service should be appointed. They should be treated courteously; no one would think it right to be dismissed without proper thanks, appreciation or courtesy.
I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that, when making appointments in future, we rely on people of high public standing and calibre. My local trust will be difficult to manage: it contains six hospitals and is incorporating new services; and major redevelopments are in progress, such as the collaborations with GPs and social services. My anxiety is that, if we cannot treat those we appoint in a more civilised fashion, in future people of high calibre will not come forward to be involved in that vital public service.
The second concern I wish to express is about money. Last week's White Paper on the health service did not address resources. We suppose that the fundamental review will be on the Government's decision on whether pensioners are to pay prescription charges, and whether to introduce other measures that have been threatened. The sums simply do not add up: over the past 18 years, the average real-terms increase in health service funding has been 3 per cent., but the Labour Government are looking at half that rate of increase over two years.
The Government claim that they have put more money into the health service, but they do so by running two years together. That does not disguise the fact that,


each year, Governments put in more than was put in under the previous plan, which is business as usual; but it is not business as usual to have a mid-year cash injection. That may look good this year, but I can guarantee that the only result, next year and the year after, is that the health service will expect further injections. I fear that the Government may rue the day they made that decision. More serious is the lack of long-term resources to meet people's rising expectations, and to deliver the quality of care they should be able to expect.
In respect of my local community trust, there is deep concern about the vindictive settlement in the rate support grant for Surrey, which has had millions of pounds wiped away. I ask the Leader of the House to use her good offices to ensure that her colleagues receive delegations, because one aspect of what is becoming an increasingly high-handed and arrogant Government is Ministers' refusal to see delegations, except apparently by video conferencing. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) chuckles, but I assure him that, when I was a junior Environment Minister, I would not turn away delegations from anywhere in the country. The same was true when I was at the Department of Health. If Members of Parliament wanted to see a Minister, they were able to do so; they were not fobbed off by being told that they had to go to local government bodies or that the meeting would have to be video conferenced.
One of the obligations of being a Minister is to receive delegations, and I hope that the Leader of the House—especially in the context of an appalling settlement for Surrey, which is leading to extremely invidious choices having to be addressed—will ensure that delegations can see the Minister concerned and put their case.
There are some outstanding reservations about the Farnham proposals, which may be exacerbated by the outcome of the rate support grant settlement. The whole question of the 40 beds depends on a reduction in length of stay, an increase in bed occupancy and the development of intermediate care, which, in turn, closely depends on the availability of social services support, working in conjunction with community nurses and local GPs. The doubts that have been expressed about the preliminary proposals will be developed further if no satisfaction is obtained about the rate support grant.
Last week, the new White Paper on health was published. When one is looking to the future of the health service, one looks for
a health service, not just an illness service—geared to improving health and preventing disease. A service focused on the individual patient, responding to their needs, listening to the public and influenced by their choices. An innovative service, evidence-based at every level and driven forward by education and training. An efficient service, which provides value for the taxpayers' money and offers individual choice. A service with a long-term view, working for the future, conditioned by the marathon rather than the sprint. A public service with a strong ethical foundation, funded mainly from taxation, accountable to the people and providing services for all.
Those words could easily have been found in the White Paper, but they did not appear there; nor did they appear in the White Paper I published a year ago, "A Service With Ambition", although they could have done. They are, in fact, words that I wrote two and a half years ago in speech entitled "The New NHS: Continuity and Change".
That only goes to show that the White Paper, instead of the dire predictions that Labour Members made when in opposition, is hauling up the white flag for the health

service reforms. I am pleased that the Government endorse the purchaser-provider division. I welcome their emphasis on clinical effectiveness, but they will have to do more to invest in research and take forward the Culyer proposals if that is to carry any credibility. A telephone service staffed by nurses is a good idea, but it will not solve the problems of the health service—many GPs' out-of-hours arrangements already include such a facility. Making internet access available is a perfectly sensible, evolutionary idea, but it will not solve much, either.
Apart from the lack of resources and the expectations that will be seen in next year's public sector pay round, the interesting aspect of the White Paper is that the Government have bounced GPs into compulsorily becoming budget holders. I regard that as an amusing irony: had the previous Government forced the pace on GPs becoming budget holders, there might have been something of an outcry.
There is concern about how the groups of GPs will work together, as GPs tend to be individualistic. It will be important that the arrangements are not excessively bureaucratic, and that the light touch of GP fundholding, which could support innovation swiftly, is not undermined.
I believe that the evolutionary approach being taken by the Government will fit very well with the plans under way for the future of Farnham's community hospital for the 21st century. I wish it well, and commend it to the House.

10 am

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want first, to urge the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to conclude his investigation into the alleged perjury of Jonathan Aitken as quickly as possible; and secondly, to say a few words about the law relating to perjury.
Perjury is a very serious offence. In 1995, 193 people in England and Wales were convicted of perjury, of whom 94 were given immediate custodial sentences. The law prescribes that seven years is the maximum prison sentence for someone convicted of perjury, although the longest term imposed since 1979 is five years. The average sentence is just under four months.
What sort of people are convicted of perjury? There are those who lie to protect their reputations. For example, a magistrate ordered his wife to act like "a dumb blonde"— I am quoting a newspaper report—to protect his reputation after a car accident. He was sentenced to 15 months and his wife to nine months for perjury.
Earlier this year, a doctor failed to give life-saving treatment to a man with severe diabetes. He was convicted of lying at the inquest, and was gaoled for 12 months. In a recent case, a woman lied at a murder trial, which later collapsed. She was convicted of lying on oath, and was gaoled for 30 months. Only two months ago, at Knightsbridge crown court, Eddie Ashby, the right-hand man to Terry Venables, the former England soccer coach, was branded as a blatant perjurer, and was gaoled for four months.
If a person lies on oath in court, the penalties are very severe. It is an incontestable and irrefutable fact that the former Cabinet Minister, the former Minister for Defence Procurement—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to intervene, but it is possible that charges may be laid against the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is extremely difficult to see how he could reasonably expect a fair trial if the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) continues with the sort of allegations he is making.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The sub judice rule does not apply unless charges have been laid. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is responsible for what he is saying.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There needs to be some discretion. I agree that, strictly speaking, the sub judice rules do not apply, but, as I understand it, inquiries are afoot in the Metropolitan police. That raises the possibility that criminal charges are being contemplated. It would be very unfortunate if any trial were to be invalidated by anything that the hon. Member for Pendle might think fit to say under the cloak of privilege.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On many, many occasions over the years, Madam Speaker has advised us that hon. Members have to take responsibility for what they say in this Chamber. However, I ask you to imagine how it would seem to the outside world if an hon. Member used parliamentary privilege to pass a criminal conviction on someone what has not even been charged. Frankly, it does not do much for the reputation of this House or—not that this matters in the slightest—the reputation of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) have said, does it mean that the Tory party and Tory Members will make no reference to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), either today or any other day?
My recollection is that the Tories have, times without number, previously attacked Labour supporters who have been charged. Indeed, they did so last night over the hon. Member for Govan. The Tories want to be able to attack Labour Members, but, when a Labour Member attacks an ex-Tory Member, it is a different kettle of fish. Let us have fair play in this place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not given the Chair the opportunity to ensure that fairness applies. We are governed by the sub judice rules of this House, and they have not been breached.

Mr. Prentice: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish or intend to behave irresponsibly.
The Jonathan Aitken libel action collapsed in June. It is now coming up to Christmas. I asked how much time had been spent by the Commissioner investigating the case, and was told last month that it was the equivalent of 39 man days. I do not want the investigation to drag on indefinitely. There is irrefutable proof in court transcripts that Jonathan Aitken lied under oath.
Jonathan Aitken was a Cabinet Minister. At one time, he was Minister for Defence Procurement. He was one of only two Members of Parliament in recent times to resign from the Privy Council. He brought the libel action against The Guardianand Granada Television. The "World in Action" documentary, "Jonathan of Arabia", detailed his history of arms dealing, and the fact that he was sponging off very rich Arabs.
The story is set out comprehensively in a book entitled, "The Liar", written by three journalists from The Guardian,Luke Harding, David Leigh and David Pallister. What upsets me about the whole case is that, when Jonathan Aitken went to court, he said that he was defending his reputation. He said that he would use
the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play … to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism.
To do that, Jonathan Aitken resigned from the Cabinet and as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He persuaded the then Prime Minister and many of his Conservative colleagues that he was a truthful individual. Against that background, had he won his libel action, he would have been awarded exemplary damages. I hate to think how much The Guardianand Granada Television would have had to pay out—probably hundreds of thousands of pounds.
In essence, the story is very simple. I will not rehearse it, other than to cite a few salient facts. When Jonathan Aitken was Minister for Defence Procurement, he stayed at the Ritz hotel in Paris, where he met Sayed Ayas, the business manager of Prince Mohammed, the son of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. The Guardian asked the simple question: "What was he doing there?" Correspondence started, innocently enough, between Peter Preston of The Guardian and Jonathan Aitken.
The contradictions in that correspondence began to show. For reasons that are known only to Jonathan Aitken, he alleged that the bill to settle the account at the Ritz hotel was paid by his wife Lolicia and not by Said Ayas. However, she was in Switzerland. In the libel action in June, irrefutable evidence was produced. The British Airways counterfoils for the journey of Lolicia and Jonathan Aitken's daughter Victoria from the United Kingdom to Switzerland proved that there was no possibility whatever of his wife dashing across to Paris to pay the bill.
That is the story. Jonathan Aitken lied on oath, like the magistrate who was sent to prison for 15 months, the friend of Terry Venables who was sent to prison for four months, and all the others that I have mentioned. They are all in it together. They are liars.
I take a simple view about these things. I am at one with Lord Denning, who said all those years ago:
Be ye never so high, the law is above you.
I hope that the police are going to pass the papers to the Crown Prosecution Service just as soon as may be, so that the Aitken affair can finally be settled.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The noble Lord Denning is a good and compassionate man. He is also one of the greatest jurists that this country


has produced. He would not have approved of what we have heard from the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Jonathan Aitken is an old friend of mine. We all know that he has brought disrepute on himself and we deeply regret that fact, but we should not use the privilege of Parliament to stamp on the grave of a man who was once a distinguished Member. I deeply regret what I have heard.
I turn to another, although not wholly unrelated, matter: the way in which we treat Members of Parliament against whom allegations of serious misconduct have been made. I am glad that the Leader of the House is in her place, because I should like her to consider my suggestions.
The points that I want to raise relate to the procedures of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. What I say is against the background of the findings against Mr. Neil Hamilton, the former Member for Tatton, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). The procedures that we have in place do not sufficiently protect hon. Members against whom serious allegations have been made.
We need to be clear that a finding of serious misconduct against an hon. Member has the most serious consequences for that Member. Mr. Neil Hamilton lost his seat. His reputation has been wholly destroyed, and I imagine that he will find it extremely difficult to secure worthwhile employment in this country. In the case of the hon. Member for West Derby, the consequences were less grave, but his reputation has been seriously tarnished.
Those consequences were predictable and foreseeable. Because of that, it is important that the procedures that we put in place are sufficient to give hon. Members proper protection. Indeed, they should comply with the rules of natural justice. May I suggest in broad terms the nature of the procedures that we should put in place?
I think that it is clear that we should have a two-stage process: an inquiry with a right of appeal. As to the inquiry, I am content that we should proceed by way of a commissioner. That is a matter for the House, and I do not object to that, although I say in parenthesis that it would be a good thing if he were to sit with more than one other—preferably, it would be a panel of three. However, the rules of natural justice are not being complied with. May I summarise what the rules should be?
It is important that every hon. Member should know the nature of the charge that has been made against him or her. It is important, too, that the Member should have ample opportunity to defend himself or herself. Hon. Members should be represented by counsel, if that is their wish. The evidence against them should be given on oath. The evidence should be tested by cross-examination on behalf of the hon. Member—by counsel, for example—and the hon. Member should have the opportunity, through counsel, to make representations to the commissioner at the initial stage.
Those basic elements should exist, and, with the greatest respect to the House, to the Select Committee and to the commissioner, they did not exist in the case of Neil Hamilton.
I also believe that there should be a proper right of appeal, and that it should involve a rehearing, if necessary, of evidence. That did not happen in the case of Neil Hamilton; nor did it happen in the case of the hon. Member for West Derby. The latter asked to be heard by the Select Committee, I believe twice, and it denied him

that request. In the case of Neil Hamilton, evidence was not given on oath before the Select Committee. Indeed, in effect, there was no evidence. Therefore, in respect of both men, there was no appeal.
Standing back, I can understand why hon. Members on both sides of the House might say to me, "You are putting an enormous infrastructure in place. Is it worth it?" I make two observations on that.
First, I ask for no more than the protection that is afforded to a person who appears before a magistrates court charged with a speeding offence. Every element that I have described applies to a person who is tried before a magistrates court for speeding. Evidence is given on oath, he knows the charges, there is the chance to cross-examine, he makes representations by counsel, and he can go to the Crown court for a complete rehearing. We are denying hon. Members the privileges, rights and protections that we give to the simplest citizen who is charged with the slightest offence.
We need to tackle the problem, because the injustice is great. I should like us fundamentally to change the procedures. I have already discussed briefly the principles that should apply at the initial stage—that is, in front of the commissioner. The House can work through the detail, and there will doubtless be various other models, but the principles are clear. However, I have come to the conclusion that the Select Committee cannot be the appellant body. There are several reasons for that.
Once we accept that there needs to be a rehearing, including the taking of evidence, we have to ask ourselves: has the Committee the time to do it? The answer is probably no. Almost every member of the Select Committee will know the person who is appealing to that body.
Moreover, most of us have been members of Select Committees, and we all bring to them our own prejudices and biases; we should not, but we do. Furthermore, in a place such as this, there are pressures of a private type—private chats in the Lobby, and the pressures that we all understand. Those should not play any part in what is a judicial process, yet they do. Therefore, I do not believe that the Select Committee can provide the sort of judicial solution—the judicial appeal—that hon. Members are entitled to expect. So what do we do?
Again, I do not want to say that I have a clear final view, but I have two suggestions. We can go down one of two roads. We can set up a specific committee that reports to the Select Committee and is composed of judicial figures—a panel of three or five persons who hold or have held high judicial office. In almost every case, the Select Committee would accept that report. Alternatively, it would have to give some jolly good reasons for not doing so. That committee of judicial figures would hear the evidence, listen to the submissions and constitute an appeal.
The alternative is to set up an ad hoc committee of senior Members of this House, and perhaps of another place, chaired by a former or current Law Lord, which would perform the same function and report to the House. There might be other models—I do not wish to be dogmatic-but I am certain that we must create a structure that accords with the principles of natural justice and gives hon. Members the feeling that they can with confidence entrust their good name and reputation to the procedures that we have established.
Let us be clear about one thing: Members are destroyed by what happens at the moment, and we should not allow it to continue. I therefore ask the House to give urgent consideration to the my suggestions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoke about the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who is sitting next to me, is a member. Over the years, there have been various Committees with various titles doing the same job—unsatisfactorily, in my view.
To some extent, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the nature of Select Committees. By and large, they can and usually do reflect the political set-up in the House. When the House is evenly divided, as was almost the case in the last Parliament, many votes were six to five or five to four. Even in the most recent case, notwithstanding the great difference in the political make-up of the House, there were still divisions along what could be construed as party political lines.
I have never warmed to the idea of Select Committees. I do not accept the notion that we can all get together and be one happy family. When the chips are down and we have to deal with an important issue, hon. Members can bet their bottom dollar that the vote will separate along party lines. Frankly, matters affecting a Member's livelihood should be dealt with by an outside body.
The right hon. and learned Member suggested a committee of the great and the good. There was such a committee not too long ago—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) used to sit on it, but he left because it would not meet in public. It is now time that these committees' functions were passed to an outside body, because in-house investigations—whether by Parliament, the stock exchange or the police—all end in disrepute. The sooner we take our investigations outside the House, the better.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). The fact is that my hon. Friend did not appear before the Committee and was not questioned by anyone. Someone said that that was a mistake, but that is what happened.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for West Derby made two requests to the Chairman to appear before the Committee to state his case, but those requests were denied.

Mr. Skinner: I heard someone say that that could have been a mistake, but my hon. Friend did not get a fair crack of the whip. I was present when he made his personal statement, and was astonished to learn that he did not have the opportunity to appear before the Committee. The sooner such matters are dealt with elsewhere, the better.
I want to speak about the plight of the coal industry and unemployment in areas where the pits have closed. We had a mini-debate a few weeks ago, but only a few hon. Members were able to speak. In the past few weeks,

the Prime Minister and one or two others members of the Cabinet have tried to cobble together some kind of energy policy, bit by bit, but that is not satisfactory.
The industry is now very small compared to what it used to be. There are now a little more than 20 pits, producing under 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That pales into insignificance when compared with what we produced when I worked down the mines, when production was more than 200 million tonnes a year. The industry is now very small, but we must try to save what is left.
First, I must emphasise again that gas reserves are finite, and very small in relation to coal reserves. It is crazy to use gas in power stations when it could be saved for domestic use. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass on the message that the control and use of gas should be part of any comprehensive energy policy.
Secondly, we have to deal with opencast mining. I heard Richard Budge complaining, whining and whingeing here the other week that he needed to cut the production of deep-mined coal because he could not sell enough to power stations. There was an element of truth in that, but he has the solution in his own hands. Of the 48 million or 49 million tonnes produced last year, 32 million came from deep mines, and about 16 million tonnes came from opencast mining. Richard Budge is responsible for that opencast production. If he wants to save the pits and the miners' jobs, all he has to do is stop opencasting, provide the necessary coal to the power stations, and thereby save the pits.
Once we have decided to use gas reserves in such a way that they will last for many years, the second message for my right hon. Friend to pass on is that we must change the planning controls—mineral planning guidance 3—in order to stop opencast developments in the old coalfield areas and at the same time preserve the jobs at the remaining 23 pits.
Thirdly, there has been much talk about beef and the fact that people on the continent are not doing the right thing by Britain. When I hear European experts talking about British beef, it gets up my nose. At the same time, the French are sending their electricity here, but we should not allow that to happen. Now is the time to act—just tell them. A comprehensive energy policy means curtailing the amount of electricity that is imported into this country from French nuclear power stations.
Fourthly, we are still giving massive subsidies to nuclear power stations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that.
Fifthly, we are importing coal. We have the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe—not in the world, because some slave labour economies such as Colombia and one or two others are cheaper. Polish, German, Spanish and Australian coal receives huge subsidies and some of it is coming on to our markets, affecting our jobs. Another element of any comprehensive energy policy would be the restriction of such imports.
I know that that will get up the nose of some people in the Common Market, but that does not worry me at all. I do not believe that the Common Market is going to be of any significant help to us. The halcyon days of the Common Market are over—yes, there was growth in the immediate post-war period, but there would have been growth, anyway.
Some people give the impression that, in order to live decently, we need to be subject to the Common Market's bidding, but that is nonsense. Let us put our cards on the table: if we want a comprehensive energy policy to save jobs in the coalfields, we are going to have to offend some of our so-called friends in the Common Market.
Having got that off my chest, I should like now, just briefly, to deal with the problems in the coalfield caused by the pit closures. I do not want to spend too much time attacking the previous Deputy Prime Minister and the rest of them, but those problems are a fact. There is no longer a single pit in my constituency, and there are absolutely none in Derbyshire, principally because of what happened in the past 18 years.
Unemployment in some pit villages—I ain't kidding—is over 30 per cent. In a few cases, it is over 40 per cent. It is true that not all those people are on unemployment benefit—as ex-miners, many of them get money from the Department of Energy under the agreements made when they were made redundant—but those unemployment rates are the truth of the matter.
The task force that has been set up, at my bidding, by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will have to think of the matter not as one of spreading the jam thinly over a massive area of Britain but as one of picking several little projects—target areas—in parts of the coalfields where unemployment is so high, and concentrating on producing a plan to reduce unemployment in the areas that have been hardest hit.
By and large, every pit was connected to rail. So we had 1,500 men going down a hole in the ground, and a railway line. The coal went down the railway line, and that was the sum total of the infrastructure. Now we have vast open spaces.
At Shirebrook, in my area, there are thousands of cleared acres that used to be mines, but now, apart from someone providing some work in the old pithead baths, there is only one chocolate factory. Why? Because there are no proper roads from pit villages. Anyone setting up a business in those areas, in many cases, would have to trundle through colliery estates to get to a motorway six or seven miles away. So there will have to be some infrastructure development to develop new forms of employment in areas of high unemployment.
If we can get that task force working in the manner that I have described—tightly targeted on areas where unemployment is so high—we can set an example, and repeat that example in other parts of Britain.
We should try something new to find employment for the disabled, too. Remploy factories are spread across Britain. A few years ago, when they closed one in the constituency next to mine, people came from all parts of Britain to march. Some people—50-odd of them—were in wheelchairs. Marchers came from Northern Ireland, from Newcastle and from all parts of Britain that have Remploy factories. It was a sight to see, because those people—many of whom were seriously disabled—were fighting for their jobs.
Such factories are a good idea, and we should be exploiting them. There is all this talk about welfare to work, so let us look at the matter from the work angle. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass on a message to Cabinet members, when they have a few minutes: if they want to get disabled people into work—if they really mean it, if welfare to work is real—let us have a lot more Remploy factories, across Britain.
Unemployment will be a problem for the rest of this Parliament. I hear all the talk about big ideas, but, if we are to ensure that we resolve many of the problems at the end of five years, we will have to get people back into work. One of the chief accomplishments of our 1945 Government—when we had a massive majority of 196—was that we managed to build. We built a health service, a welfare state and houses for every local authority. We also rebuilt Britain, almost from the ashes.
How did we do it? We certainly did not have any money, because the country was skint after the second world war. It was done, first, through political will, and, secondly, by the fact that everyone had a job. Everyone was pulling their weight and paying taxes and national insurance. Today, we still have an army—if the figures were counted correctly—of well over 3 million unemployed. Employment is the key to solving most of the problems we face today.
I hope that my right hon. Friend has taken down all those points in fine detail, so that they can be passed to the respective Cabinet members, and we can deal with the issues of developing an energy policy and getting rid of mass unemployment.

Mr. Mark Oaten: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak in this debate, and also for the clarification that you gave me when I was sworn in, that I would not be required to make a second maiden speech—sparing me the embarrassment of having to praise my predecessor, who was me.
The points that I should like to make to the Leader of the House relate specifically to the experiences that I have had in fighting two elections this year, and in facing a court case and election petitions. The issues may seem trivial, but, after I have expressed my concerns, anyone who has stood in an election will realise that there are some very serious problems with the current election system.
We must ensure that we preserve the bedrock of our democracy. To do so, voters will have to be sure that our way of running elections is fair, sensible and practical. The public must have confidence that we have such a system. Unfortunately, this year's experience for me and the voters of Winchester suggests that we do not. I ask the Leader of the House to assure me that she will recommend to those in the relevant Departments that they should conduct a fundamental examination of some of the issues that I will raise.
The first issue is that of rogue candidates. I am pleased that the Government seem already to be taking the issue very seriously. Hon. Members from both sides of the House—even Madam Speaker herself—have faced that problem, which was particularly acute in Winchester. In the general election, we had the interference of a candidate who stood as a "Liberal Democrat—Top choice for Parliament". He secured 640 votes, whereas I won by only two votes. All hon. Members will realise that that candidate's interference caused mayhem, and that the subsequent Winchester by-election can be attributed largely to him.
I know that Ministers are examining the matter of the labelling of individual candidates. It is essential that the process moves speedily—so that such candidates cannot stand in a misleading form in the European elections, and certainly not in the next general election.
The specific point that I should like to raise, however, deals with an initial inability to object to the nomination of such candidates. In Winchester, when that "Liberal Democrat—Top choice for Parliament" candidate submitted his nomination, we were told that we had only two hours to object to it. That meant that—literally in two hours—my wife, agents and I had to dash round trying to track down the 10 individuals who had nominated him. Imagine my horror when I discovered, after we tracked down five of them, that my posters were up in the gardens of three of their homes, expressing their desire to vote for me.
We went into those people's houses, spoke to them and asked, "Why have you nominated someone else for this election?" They expressed their concern, and an immediate desire to undo their nomination of entirely the wrong person. We were able to persuade them to visit the returning officer, and marched them in to do so. With an hour left to object, those people were prepared to swear affidavits in front of the returning officer, saying that they had been completely tricked into signing the wrong candidate's nomination paper; that they wished to undo that; and that they wished to support the candidate whose posters were up in their gardens.
I was horrified to realise that the returning officer had absolutely no power to refuse the nomination, and that those people had to live with nominating a candidate whom they did not wish to nominate. I should like that situation to be examined, because returning officers have to have greater powers to query nomination papers when individuals say clearly that they were tricked into signing them.
I also believe that we have to examine the time available to object to questionable nominations. It was very difficult to dash round Winchester, trying to track down the nominating individuals. Two hours is simply not sufficient to complete the process properly. In addition, 24 hours is not enough time for the courts to listen to the various arguments relating to the description of candidates. The matter needs urgent attention.
My concerns then moved on to the way in which the election in Winchester was run—the count itself. There certainly seemed to be grave difficulties in dealing with two elections on one day. There were problems for the polling staff in each of the polling stations. The count was the longest in history, with the result not finally declared until 6 pm the following Friday. That was stressful for the candidates, the clerks and everyone involved.
The reasons were connected with the problem of having two elections on the same day and individuals putting ballot papers into several boxes, which at times were overflowing. Frankly, the system could not cope with the number of people who wanted to vote on two extremely long ballot forms at the same time. If we are to continue to have dual elections, we must re-examine how they are managed and run.
The position went from bad to worse. Within half an hour of my being declared the winner, there were rumours that an election petition would be brought against me. I wish to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House my concerns about the way in which election petitions operate. I shall spare the House the intricacies of the system. If "Mastermind" were still running, it would be

my specialist subject. However, the House needs to know that the way in which election petitions operate is extremely unfair to Members and petitioners. The time scale involved needs examining.
It seems to be fundamentally wrong that I was able to be sworn in, take my seat, make a maiden speech and act as the constituency Member with the uncertainty of an election petition hanging over me for almost six months. It does not seem proper than any hon. Member should have to be put in that position.
I understand that other countries deal with such disputes much more effectively. In the French general election, a similar petition was brought on similar grounds, but the matter was resolved within 48 hours—before anyone had taken the seat. The process here takes a wholly inappropriate length of time, and the uncertainty hanging over me and the individual who took that action against me was unacceptable.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he should not have taken his seat until the matter had been resolved?

Mr. Oaten: If there had been a quicker process by which election petitions could be dealt with, and it was clear to hon. Members who had petitions against them that the matter would be resolved within a week or even 48 hours, I certainly would not have taken my seat. When I found out that the petition was pending against me, I had doubts about taking my seat, and even considered resigning to try to bring the matter to a head more quickly. It may interest the House to know that an hon. Member cannot resign until 21 days after a general election—as I discovered when I looked into that option.
The law needs clarification in respect of the way in which election petitions operate. At the time, there were major concerns among lawyers on both sides who were desperately trying to interpret the law. I urge the Leader of the House to consider the points that I have raised.
One aspect of the petition against me was the basis on which it was brought. It revolved around the fact that the ballot papers had not been franked, and that, if they had been franked, it might have changed the result.
Why do we frank ballot papers in the first place? I understood that it was to ensure that no fraud or corruption could take place. However, it was assumed in the petition drawn up against me and the subsequent court cases that, although papers had not been franked, fraud and corruption had not taken place, and they were allowed to be included and to change the result.
We need to review how we judge unfranked papers and the system of perforation. Why do we do it? Is it a foolproof system? Hon. Members may be amused or alarmed to hear that, after all the publicity about the franking of election papers, during the re-run in Winchester one of the perforation stamping machines broke down, and the presiding officer in the village hall had to raid the kitchen for some forks which were then used to make the official mark on the ballot papers. It is a farce, and it needs urgent review.
We also need to look at the way in which we use the electoral roll in elections. The re-run in Winchester took place some 18 months after people had originally completed their forms to be included on the electoral roll.


As a result, a large number of people in the constituency felt disfranchised. They could not vote in the election, although some had lived in the area for almost two years.
People who had completed new forms for inclusion on the roll in October were extremely confused by the fact that they had no right to vote in the by-election in November. Surely it cannot be beyond technology to have a rolling register that would be more up to date. After all, we collect the council tax pretty quickly. Individuals certainly do not have to wait two years before having to pay. Why cannot our electoral roll be updated along the same lines? It would seem a simple thing to do, and it would help to reduce the number of people who, feeling disfranchised, then try to vote illegally.
Another cause of disfranchisement is the time scale for applications of postal and proxy votes. People often complain about the short notice given for applying for postal votes—often about a week after an election is called. That does not give people enough time to organise postal votes. Again, I call on the Leader of the House to look at the current deadlines for organising postal and proxy votes.
My final concern is personation at polling stations. Hon. Members may be aware that, in Winchester, there were two proven cases of personation, although I believe that there were many more. There were probably personations in every constituency. Only when the majority is just two votes do such matters become critical and come to light. The implications were that individuals went to cast votes when they had no legal entitlement to do so.
I am concerned that polling clerks have no powers to refuse individuals the right to vote. In Winchester, a polling clerk recognised someone who requested a ballot paper in someone else's name. However, that polling clerk had no power to prevent that individual from voting.
It leads to the ridiculous situation where, for example, I could walk into the Prime Minister's constituency, say that I was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and vote as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield if he had not already done so. It is my understanding that the presiding officer or clerk would have no power to prevent me from doing that, if I continued to insist that I was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and wanted to vote. I urge the Leader of the House to look at that aspect of electoral law.
In conclusion, it is now time to look at the fundamental matters of rogue candidates; the power to challenge nominations; whether we should include perforations on ballot papers, and, if we do, their ability to change their results; the possibility of having a rolling electoral roll; the timing and speeding up of election petitions; the working practices of joint elections; and the problem of personation. The Government need to review all those issues.
I am grateful to the people of Winchester that the story had a happy ending for me. Nevertheless, I remain committed to the principle that we need to look at the entire election process. My personal experience suggests that it is not as robust and healthy as it needs to be for the future of our democracy.

Mr. George Stevenson: After the speech by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I should like to change the subject

altogether. My concern is the compensation regulations that apply to individuals, home owners and businesses affected by major infrastructure schemes—particularly major road schemes.
I raise the issue at this historic moment because nearing completion through the heart of my constituency is one of the most expensive, and certainly one of the most complicated, urban motorway schemes in the country, which was initiated by the previous Government with the best intentions.
As a result, I embarked, like the hon. Member for Winchester—although circumstances were different—on an extremely rapid learning curve. Given that the scheme goes through a highly congested urban area, many hundreds of businesses and properties were affected. My constituents who were affected very quickly realised that the regulations are outdated and anomalous, and that they leave those concerned with a deep sense of injustice.
Why are the regulations outdated? In the main, the regulations that cover compensation and other relevant matters concerning road schemes were established during the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. As far as I can gather, the most recent such regulations were made in 1973. So review of regulations that directly affect individuals is long overdue—if for no other reason than the fact that the gap between the regulations being made and today is more than 20 years. Circumstances have changed considerably over that time.
The fact that the regulations are outdated is not the most important point that I want to make in this regard. Why are the regulations anomalous? I shall give one or two examples from the experiences of my constituents over the past three and a half years.
The road scheme to which I have referred is coming to a conclusion, but the first phase of it began almost four years ago. We are not talking about amending a road junction or some relatively minor scheme that may take a few weeks or a few months. We are talking about a scheme that was decided by the Government and which affects the lives of individuals and businesses over at least four years. Of course, when the road is finished, the contractors will pick up the mess and take their tools and plans away, and that will be the end of it as far as they are concerned. It is certainly not the end of it for those who have been affected.
If a business or a home owner is directly affected by the scheme, the authorities have a duty to submit a compulsory purchase order. That in itself is a complicated process—although in my experience, it can be relatively simple. It is when one comes to consider either compulsory or discretionary purchase, which is available to the authorities, that one begins to see the problems that individuals and particularly businesses experience. For example, under the regulations, there is no provision for any compensation for loss of business, even if the business is directly or indirectly affected by such a road scheme. A number of examples illustrate that point.
Imagine that a family—mother, father and grandparents beforehand—have been in business for generations when along come the Government and say, "We wish to build a road through this area, and it will affect your business directly. We have provision for compulsory purchase of your property and, subject to certain procedures, that may work out reasonably successfully. You may want to wind up the business, but you could be relocated, which is a difficult process."
There is no provision whatever for loss of business. It does not matter whether compulsory or discretionary purchase orders are used: there is no right under the regulations to business or trade, even though a business may have been trading for generations. That is extremely serious, and certainly an injustice with which the House ought to be concerned.
Many businesses in my constituency have had to employ professional people to act on their behalf, which is right and proper, although, when they look into possible compensation, they are told bluntly and starkly that it does not matter what effect the road scheme has had, because there is no provision in compensation regulations for loss of business. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will take particular note of that, and ensure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of it.
What happens if one is a householder whose house is not directly in the line of the proposed road? If it is within 100 m of the centre of the proposed road, one may apply for what is called discretionary blight. But my goodness, one has to jump through some very important hoops before one gets anywhere near receiving compensation under that provision. I shall give the House just two examples to underline that.
If one applies for discretionary blight, one has to satisfy what are called the McCarthy rules. If we think back to the early 1950s, we could draw some perverse comparisons. I will not detain the House with details of how the McCarthy rules came to be. I shall simply refer to two aspects of them.
The first is the principle of prior knowledge. What does that mean? If someone bought a property in the prior knowledge that the road was to be built, they would have no right to compensation. What do we mean by prior knowledge? In the case of my constituency, it meant from the day that the Department of Transport drew a red pencil line on the map. So, if someone bought a property within 100 m of that line after the public inquiry, and so on, they would have no right to compensation under discretionary blight provisions, because they had prior knowledge.
What is not available at that time—nor can it be—is information on the array of side road orders, amendments to plans, closures of roads during construction, and so on. People sometimes have to wait years before details of the scheme become available.
In the case of the road in my constituency, the line was put on the map in 1986, but it was not until early 1990 that details became available. During that time, people may have bought properties. They will not receive compensation because they had prior knowledge—although they had no prior knowledge whatever of the road closures and the direct effect on their property. Therefore, they receive no compensation.
I recognise that we have to have rules and regulations to govern the important issue of compensation. However, it is unacceptable that a line can be drawn on a map and, years later—in this case, five or six years later—details of the road and the effect it will have on the side roads are still not available. People whose homes are affected receive no compensation, because they are deemed to have prior knowledge. They had some prior knowledge, but they did not have the detailed prior knowledge that would have enabled them to make a proper judgment.
Even people who are able to show that they meet the McCarthy rules on discretionary blight face the problem of market value. The district valuer in Stoke-on-Trent has often told me that it is his job to determine market value having no regard for the fact that a road is to be built. With the best will in the world, the system does not work like that, because, the moment that a road scheme is identified—even only in general terms—the value of the neighbouring properties goes down. It does not matter how well intentioned the district valuer is, because he cannot manufacture an artificial market value, and he would be wrong to do so.
The reality is that people who claim discretionary blight—like scores of my constituents—go through the hoops set up by the McCarthy rules; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions accepts the blight notice and the need to pay compensation, but, when the district valuer sets the market valuation, people are appalled that the value of the property that they have lived in for years is reduced by half. I have personal experience of that happening to my constituents.
The district valuer says in answer to representations that he has set the current market value, and he can do no other. That is a serious anomaly, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take notice of those stark examples of how outdated the regulations are. They leave people—who, through no fault of their own, have their properties and businesses jeopardised by major infrastructure schemes—with a real sense of injustice. An urgent and detailed examination of the working of the regulations is long overdue. We should modernise them, and remove the chronic injustices they cause.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to make several brief points, but, before doing so I shall first touch on the speech of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), to whose remarks Opposition Members listened carefully. He has a right to be pleased by his election victory. No doubt the Liberal council in Winchester will put in order some of the difficulties that he articulated. My election in Southend, West was less than satisfactory in certain respects. The campaign started with the Liberal candidate sending me a postcard saying that the Liberals did not want any part in a Punch and Judy show. However, for the four weeks of the campaign, we had a big Punch and Judy show from them.
My result was declared at about 6 am in the midst of a farcical situation. Everyone was very tired because they had been separating the county ballot papers from the general election ballot papers. I was asked if I would allow my vote to be reduced by 120 so that everyone could go home. I said that I was being asked to behave like a gentleman and we all shook hands, but one of the other parties made a fuss and wanted to go through the ballot papers. I could have been difficult and asked for a further count—I probably would have got even more votes. I understand that the hon. Member for Winchester feels hard done by, but he is not alone in experiencing difficulties at counts.
The first matter that I wish to raise is the Kyoto conference. I am very pro-American, but I am a little sick of being lectured from across the Atlantic. The conference was farcical. The European Union commitment was to


reduce emissions by 8 per cent. on the 1990 level by 2010. It is crazy that the Americans, the most powerful nation in the world, will not agree to that target. The underdeveloped countries, which are in the majority, also have not agreed any targets. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned energy policy, but the situation becomes even more farcical when we realise that the Government are adopting a higher target than the European Union has agreed. Yesterday, I visited the Dunton emissions plant for the celebration of its 40th anniversary, and I know that the Minister also hoped to be present. At that meeting, the chairman of Ford worldwide expressed his concern about the issue of emissions, and we should listen carefully to what he had to say about the consequences for the United Kingdom.
My second point is about vitamin B6. I knew very little about the subject until constituents started to write to me, but some 3 million people use that product and it gives comfort to any number of sufferers, although I shall not dwell on that point. The way that the issue has been handled since July is extraordinary. Unfortunately, we read most Government announcements in the newspapers these days. I am sure that the Minister will say that he will not take any lectures from the Conservative party—although we have a new Government and new Labour is walking on water so they will not wish to refer to what happened in the past. I understand that six hon. Members have made representations to the relevant Minister. Has there has been any movement on vitamin B6, because several of my constituents are upset about it?
My third point concerns the Palace theatre in Westcliff. There is a legitimate debate about the funding of the arts and not all my constituents would agree that the arts should take priority over health and education. However, given that it is generally accepted that a certain proportion of the national cake goes to the arts, my constituents want a fair share of the money from the Eastern area arts board. The present situation is unfair. At the moment, the Palace theatre in Westcliff—a magnificent theatre—gets £45,000; Watford gets £204,500; Colchester gets £230,000; and Ipswich gets £322,750. I recently met the chief executive and other representatives of the board and I told them that the share for the Palace theatre was ridiculous. Southend council is the second biggest net contributor to the board, but it gets a poor allocation of resources. It was clear that the chief executive was softening me up so that next year we would get nothing. That is not satisfactory. The Minister for Arts knows how strongly I feel on this issue, and I intend to take every opportunity to make sure that the wonderful theatre in Westcliff receives a fair share of the moneys available.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is Cyprus. Together with other hon. Members, I had the opportunity this year to visit Cyprus, where I first visited Famagusta. We are broadly speaking in agreement in the House that the situation in Cyprus is a tragedy. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference that we were into new territory, and that he and the Prime Minister took Cyprus very seriously and would ensure that something was done.
The meeting between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash was unsatisfactory. President Clerides's view was that the Greek Cypriots were committed to a just and long-lasting solution in a bizonal, bicommunal federation accepted by both sides in 1977 and 1979 in high-level agreements, while the solution preserves the

integrity of Cyprus as one sovereign and one international personality. To achieve a just and long-lasting solution, the Greek Cypriots believe that the security aspects should be addressed and that a satisfactory solution to the problem of the displaced should be found, while human rights and basic freedoms are safeguarded in accordance with the acquis communautaire and other international instruments of human rights.
During my two visits, I saw that there was a great fear among the Greek Cypriots about the intentions of the Turkish Government. It is so easy to forget about the situation in Cyprus. The UK is one of the three guarantors and, as a Christmas present, the House should unite in an effort to ensure that Cyprus is united.
The final point I wish to raise is the very serious matter of suicide. A huge number of people in this country commit suicide. Every day of the week, one will read in the newspapers that someone has committed suicide. Many of us who travel on the tube find that it is disrupted and we all curse and blind, until we find that someone has thrown himself on the track. The same is true of British Rail. We can think of the recent suicides of children who have been bullied at school. So many people under different circumstances commit suicide.
In my time in this House, Jocelyn Cadbury—a former Member for Birmingham, Northfield—and then John Heddle have committed suicide. Two of the Members who have taken part in today's debate-the hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—were present when we had an all-night sitting on gun law. Because the hon. Member for Bolsover legitimately used the procedures of this House, we stayed in our places rather than constantly dividing. I was next to John Heddle during that all-night sitting and I felt that I got to know him far better than I had done before. I was horrified when he committed suicide a few days later. We have also had the recent, tragic case of Gordon McMaster.
Last year's figures showed that we had the lowest number of suicides this century, but many people in our constituencies are so disturbed and upset that they may be considering suicide. I represent the 31st out of 659 constituencies in terms of the number of constituents who are senior citizens. Many will be spending Christmas on their own, and I simply make a plea. When we enter the millennium, rather than 3,500 people in this country committing suicide each year—with the tragedy that that brings to our lives—it would be a mark of this country's value and civilisation if there were a drastic reduction in the number of suicides. In the milk of human kindness, I hope that all hon. Members—I know that they will—will ensure that all their constituents get help and support not only over Christmas, but in the years that lie ahead.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: First, I apologise for the fact that I was not in the Chamber for the earlier speeches and for the fact that I am unable to stay for the rest of the debate, because I am serving on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill Committee, to which I must return.
Owing to the pressure of numbers contributing to the debate on the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, neither of those who dissented from the


Committee's report was able to be heard. Therefore, I want to take this opportunity to bring to the House my concerns about the way in which self-regulation is operating—or, as I would contend, failing to operate—in this important area. It is an important area because if we cannot regulate ourselves in a way that commands confidence, both in the House and among the public at large, we certainly cannot aspire to regulate others.
I believe that the report into the investigation of Neil Hamilton was a travesty—a travesty of natural justice, and the result of a deplorable shambles. It is urgent that we put together proper procedures in the House so we never have that sort of a shambles again. There was general agreement among Members of all parties that evening during the debate that the procedures were inadequate.
First, let mesay that I do not criticise the thoroughness with which Sir Gordon Downey carried out his investigation; it would be quite wrong to do so. The report involved the detailed amassing of highly complex evidence, and reports that there was a falling out between Sir Gordon Downey and the Committee are very much exaggerated. I pay tribute to the report that he produced. Nor am I necessarily convinced that Mr. Hamilton was innocent of the main charge—taking cash in brown envelopes for questions from Mohammed Al Fayed. My disquiet over the report has nothing to do with any view that Mr. Hamilton might be innocent. It is straightfor-wardly that I do not believe I can make a judgment as to whether he was innocent or guilty on the basis of the procedures that were adopted.
It is disturbing that the House, which should set an example of justice and fair dealing, was presented with a report against which Mr. Hamilton—or anybody else in such a situation; this is not special pleading for Mr. Hamilton—had no appeal. It is a basic tenet of British justice that there can be an appeal against a guilty verdict. We assume the verdict was guilty because it was indicative of the shambles which occurred that no two members of the Committee were able to agree on what the report was telling the House.
The Chairman said that Sir Gordon's findings stood, which meant that the verdict was guilty; but the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) told the House that there was no clear verdict, so it was not proven, which was also my understanding of our conclusion. That is why we removed one set of words, saying that we endorsed the findings, and substituted another, saying that we could find no practical way of adding to or subtracting from them. The House was entitled to a clear statement of what we had found, rather than several confused versions from different members of the Committee.
Throughout our proceeding, we were bedevilled by the fact that there were no clear, agreed procedures. I had never before sat on a Committee in which we made up our procedures as we went along, but that is exactly what happened. We could not agree on what our remit was or what our procedures should be. We ended by reducing justice to the decision of a single inquisitor, against which there was no effective appeal.
It was farcical that, when Mr. Hamilton appeared before us and talked at us—I cannot think of any other way of expressing it—for nearly two and a half hours,

we were not allowed to ask any questions. If we thought that he had contradicted himself or that something was unclear, we could not ask about it; we had to sit there in silence and absorb the onslaught—that is what it was—for two and a half hours. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. At the end, I was none the wiser. I had heard a great deal that had raised an awful lot of questions in my mind, but, because I could not ask questions, I was neither wiser nor better informed.
We could not examine the main witnesses against Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Al Fayed was not called before the Committee, and we could not examine those who said that they had been involved in the dispatch of the money, so we had no basis on which to assess a report that had been challenged. That was our real problem, because there were no serious challenges to the facts in all the other reports before us; there were pleas in mitigation, writings to the Committee to apologise and drawings of our attention to other matters, but there was no real challenge to facts. On the occasion when there was an extremely serious challenge to facts we did not have the procedures to deal with it.
We examined Sir Gordon Downey's huge and extremely thorough report and we knew that it would take a very long time, involve a great deal of complexity, and demand resources that we possibly did not have, to re-examine the questions from scratch. The answer to that was not to shrug our shoulders and have done with it, but to come back to the House and say that we were stuck and needed a clear remit and guidance on how we should proceed.
We have to decide whether the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is an appellate body. Should it hear appeals against the Commissioner's findings? If not, who is to hear such appeals; or are we seriously suggesting that we should create in the House a situation, unique in this country, in which a finding can blight someone's career prospects, and even preclude membership of the House, but no appeal is possible? Surely that must be unacceptable.
We have to decide what appeal there should be. Should it be heard by the Committee or by some other body? Should practising lawyers be involved? What should we do? Is the Committee simply a sentencing and administrative body, or is it an investigative body that determines guilt and innocence? Those questions, incredibly, have not been sorted out. We carried out investigations—if that is the right word—into the conduct of Members of Parliament, without an answer to the basic question: what is the purpose of the Committee?
The purpose of the Committee determines very much what its composition should be. I regret the fact that it has been downgraded in composition. A Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, sitting in judgment on Members of Parliament, and occasionally quite senior ones, should itself be a senior Committee. I regret the fact that the Leader of the House does not chair it. The Committee's predecessor was chaired by the then Leader of the House, and back in the mists of time it was chaired by the Prime Minister. That gave the Committee real gravitas, which I believe is now lacking.
I do not want to criticise new Members, as those who serve on the Committee are extremely diligent and intelligent, and spend a lot of time examining the evidence, but they lack one huge dimension: experience.


Experience counts in such investigations, as it helps one to understand what a Member of Parliament could or could not be expected to know. One needs to have served in the House before one can reach such judgments. The composition of the Committee is all wrong.
We need to ask ourselves whether legal representation should be allowed. In highly complex investigations of the sort that went on in the Hamilton case, we should consider seriously whether we should allow cross-examination of witnesses. It is worth pointing out that in this case Mr. Hamilton was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him, even in front of Sir Gordon Downey, never mind in front of the Committee. That seems to me to be another affront to justice, and even to natural justice.
I do not say that there are easy answers. I am not standing here sanctimoniously saying that we should have had it all sorted out, although we should have had a lot more sorted out than we did; but the solution that the Committee should have arrived at was to say honestly to the House that, within our current remit, against procedures of which we were not even certain, we really needed clearer instructions before we could proceed. As it is, we have left a man—who may be guilty; I do not presume innocence—with no clear verdict and no right of appeal. That should bring us deep shame.
It is urgently necessary that the House address itself to what it expects the Committee to do, what composition it should have, and how we are to resolve the situation. It will be fine as long as we carry on having simple cases, but the next time that we get one of the complexity of the Hamilton case, we will be back in exactly the same situation if we have not sorted out our procedures.
I resigned from the Committee because I could not go on wading against a sea of uncertain procedures, with no clear remit, making things up as we went along and, in the end, having to subscribe to a report that, I believe, brought shame on us, not because we had not made honest efforts but because we had not been able to sort out the mess. It ill behoves any Select Committee to return a shambles to the House.
Of course I understand the convention by which both Government and Opposition accept reports from Select Committees, especially when they concern standards and privileges and the regulation of our own conduct; but on this occasion I believe that they should not have accepted the report: it should have been sent back to the Committee for reconsideration. It was accepted, however, and the damage is done; whether justly or unjustly, we will never know, because there is no appeal. We must get this sorted out for the future. If we cannot regulate ourselves we have absolutely no right to aspire to regulate anybody else.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If everyone who wishes to catch my eye is to succeed in doing so, brevity is essential. I call Mr. Andrew Love.

Mr. Andrew Love: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not informing you earlier that I wanted to contribute to this debate.
After what we might call the wide-ranging contribution from the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I am sorry that I did not bring along a few more of my

constituency issues; but I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment as I echo and support what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said.
I, too, have a major road scheme in my constituency. It is an extension to the north circular road which cuts in two a small shopping centre. I was approached by some of the traders in that shopping centre and I investigated the situation. I discovered that traders have no right in law to passing trade. It does not matter if they have had regular customers for years and can prove it; they have no right in law. In any scheme of that nature, where car-borne customers are cut off, traders have no recourse to compensation.
I want to reinforce and support the idea that this issue should be examined. Road schemes, especially in urban areas, by their very nature have an impact on the local community and local traders. It is incumbent on us to look closely at what we can do to mitigate the effects while the scheme is being undertaken.
This morning's debate gives me an opportunity to raise the issue of the future of the building societies movement. In the light of earlier contributions, perhaps I should declare an interest—it is not and does not have to be in the Register of Members' Interests—in that I am the chairman of the all-party building societies group in the House.
The thrust of my remarks is that building societies are under threat and that much of the strength of the financial services sector in this country will be undermined if they disappear. Some people will express concern that I should view their future in such stark terms because, after all, the Nationwide successfully fought off an attempt to undermine its mutual status and the Government recently raised the threshold required in any ballot to demutualise, recognising the situation. Both are true and I welcome them.
My concern relates to the failure of the Building Societies Act 1997—it was passed under the previous Government—to provide any safeguard for societies against the activities of carpetbaggers or the impact that that is having on building societies and whether, as a result, their mutuality will be perceived as a hindrance to their future success. Before considering that, I shall talk about the value that mutual organisations bring to the financial services sector.
The consumer benefits from access to the services and products provided by mutual organisations. In other words, building societies offer choice to the consumer and they are popular. Although the remaining societies have only about 25 per cent. of the mortgage market, over the past three months they have lent more to their customers than all the banks combined. Survey after survey confirms that building societies have come top in customer service and friendliness. They provide diversity in their different structures and different objectives. For example, mutuals are able to take a longer-term perspective as they are not driven by the need continually boost to their share prices or to maximise dividends to shareholders.
Many societies are regionally or even locally based which brings them closer to their customers. Many play a significant role in their local communities. I am sure that hon. Members up and down the country would echo that. Building societies provide stability in the market—not for them the false attractions of property speculation or


secondary banking. As a result, no savings have been lost in building societies this century. They are truly prudential organisations.
Most importantly, building societies provide competition to the banks and other institutions in the financial services sector. That is because mutual organisations do not have to pay dividends to external shareholders. As a result, building societies have a margin advantage that allows them to offer cheaper mortgages, or savings accounts which, on average, pay more. Most societies have decided to combine the two. That was most graphically illustrated by the announcement yesterday that the Nationwide was pledged not to raise its main mortgage rate in response to last month's base rate increase. That has opened up a record 0.6 per cent. gap with its main demutualised rivals. The Nationwide has also reaffirmed its pledge to maintain, and even to increase, its savings rate. That will maintain the significant margin advantage that currently exists between the mutual and non-mutual sectors.
In a recent survey, the Consumers Association compared a range of core products—savings accounts, tax exempt special savings accounts, mortgages and overdrafts—and found that consumers would have been nearly £1,600 better off over five years with a building society than with a bank. Without that competitive restraint in the market, it is likely that the banks would widen the margins between their mortgage and savings rates. That has already been shown in research carried out by the Consumers Association.
The building societies sector has been undergoing rapid change in the past few years and that has culminated in the conversion of five of the largest societies this year. However, that still leaves 70 societies with assets in excess of £130 billion. The recent windfall gains to members have created a climate that threatens the very mutuality of those remaining societies.
In that context, I again congratulate the Nationwide on the magnificent campaign that it fought earlier this year. A group of five so-called "members for conversion" stood for election solely on a ticket of demutualisation, in the teeth of opposition from the board, the staff and, as it turned out, the members of the society. At the height of that campaign about 25,000 accounts were being opened daily, swamping the society and making it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out its ordinary business for its main customers. As a result—this is according to the society's management—the level of service it provided fell below an acceptable level.
The Nationwide came through that with flying colours and, fortunately, its members voted in favour of their long-term interests rather than for short-term gain. I do not conclude that that spells the end of the carpetbaggers. I should like to think that that would be so, but I find it difficult. There is growing evidence that others are coming forward to take up the challenge to demutualise.
Although the next annual general meeting of the Nationwide does not take place until April, it is already clear from public statements that at least nine candidates, some who have stood previously and some new candidates, are committed to "members for conversion" and will be standing for election, regardless of the overwhelming result earlier this year.
It is clear that societies, which have to survive in a cut-throat, competitive market, simply cannot continue to be diverted from their core business activities to defend their mutual status. If the attacks continue, even if unsuccessful, societies are likely to be faced with the unpalatable choice of continuing to defend their position against increasing odds or accepting that it would be better for the business and for their other stakeholders to convert on their own terms. That would reduce the number of societies below the level that would make that sector sustainable and would, inevitably, lead to its elimination from the financial services market.
I shall now turn to an argument put most cogently by Professor David Llewellyn of Loughborough university. He said that there is a systemic interest in maintaining mutuality, not because it is somehow an inherently superior form of ownership, but because there is a need for a mixed ownership structure in the financial services sector. If that is accepted, mutuality becomes a public policy issue, and Government, and especially Parliament, must take an interest in ensuring that the consumer does not lose out from continued conversions. How can that be done?
The Minister has already shown the way by raising the threshold for conversion to 50 per cent. It must be right that fundamental decisions about the future of building societies should require at least that level of support before demutualisation can happen. After all, converted societies can be taken over only if 75 per cent. of shareholders vote to confirm such action.
For large mutual societies, the number of people required to nominate candidates for election should be raised above the current maximum of 50. As recent events have shown, that maximum can easily be exploited by a small band of eccentric or dissident individuals. Let us compare what happens in building societies with what happens in general elections, on which the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) commented earlier. A Member of the House must be nominated by 10 electors in an average constituency of 67,000. That is one for every 6,700. The Nationwide, the largest mutual society, has 7 million members; the Bradford and Bingley, the second largest, 2.2 million. For the Nationwide, one nomination per 140,000 members is needed; for the Bradford and Bingley, one per 44,000. Nominations should be based on a percentage of the total membership, with an absolute maximum written into the legislation.
Membership of societies could be restricted to people with an interest in its activities, not abused by those interested only in asset-stripping the society for their own benefit. To gain ownership rights in a society, applicants should be members for a minimum period of, say, one, two or three years. That would return societies to their original ideal of requiring new customers to save with them before gaining membership or its benefits.
Is it reasonable to ask societies to go through the disruption and uncertainty inherent in the campaigns being mounted by members for conversion and other like-minded groups? They can stand every year with impunity and little financial outlay, yet the cost to societies of mounting a reasonable defence, and from the disruption of normal business, is enormous. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the framework of regulation should provide stability and ensure that societies cannot


be held to ransom by small and unrepresentative groups with no commitment to the objectives of the mutual organisations of which they are members.
Building societies have been with us for more than 200 years and have more than 100 years of expertise in the savings and mortgage markets. If they and their expertise are not to be undermined, action is necessary to deal with the difficulties and disruption that they face.

Mr. Tim Loughton: In the interests of brevity, I shall not repeat the globetrotting account of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I shall limit myself to the problems of West Sussex, which includes my constituency, and consider the Government's effect on it. There is a growing feeling that we are being victimised to the benefit of new Labour's friends in the northern metropolitan boroughs and, in particular, those with distinctly old Labour profligate spending habits.
First, I shall discuss last week's shocking announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions that West Sussex is to be singled out. An additional 12,800 homes are to be built in our county by 2011, on top of the 37,900 already agreed in the county structure plan. It is ironic that while the Government were talking up their credentials on greenhouse gases, the Secretary of State was busy putting another nail in the coffin of the West Sussex green belt, a most un-environmentally friendly gesture from an apparently environmentally friendly Deputy Prime Minister.
Earlier this year, an independent panel concluded that there was no case for increasing the housing allocation figures for West Sussex. It was an independent panel, and a fair and square decision. The Secretary of State was represented on the panel and made no objection then. Now, in a fit of pique, he has decided to kick over the table, take home his toys and object. The inquiry recognised that West Sussex had few brown-field sites left on which to allocate additional housing. It recognised that large parts of the county are taken up by the downs, which are dominated by areas of outstanding natural beauty. It recognised that West Sussex lacked the infrastructure, especially roads, to deal with the extra pressures that a further 30,000 people would bring as a result of the extra allocation of houses, let alone the effects of extra traffic on the CO2 emissions with which the Kyoto conference was so taken up.
The inquiry, with its independent judgment, also recognised the impact that the additional houses would have on the delicate balance between jobs and homes, especially in my densely populated patch of West Sussex on the coastal strip, where unemployment is already well above average. We are certainly not enjoying the image of the cosy south that is often portrayed. The extra homes allocation is the equivalent of adding a new Basingstoke to our county. West Sussex is in danger of becoming a massive semi-rural suburbia circling the downs.
The decision met widespread opposition. The county council and the three leaders of the political parties on it were united in their opposition and have
called for a

judicial review, which I support. The decision is opposed by the seven Conservative Members in West Sussex. It was also opposed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose press release stated:
The draft West Sussex Structure Plan had been agreed by a careful analysis of housing and environmental needs in the county. It stood as a beacon of a more common sense approach to planning new housing development and its housebuilding levels, significantly below those set out in Government planning guidance, received independent official support … The new Government has made an appalling start to meeting the challenge of providing new homes in ways that renew our towns instead of concreting the countryside. This decision is both undemocratic and environmentally damaging. What is the point of giving local authorities flexibility in planning future housebuilding levels if politicians simply reinstate their own inflexible figures?
The Sussex Wildlife Trust stated:
This makes a mockery of the enormous amount of work done to establish a sustainable level of housing development in West Sussex.
More houses
would cause ongoing environmental damage … This 'Environmental capacity' argument was accepted by the independent inspector at the Examination in Public … The news is a severe blow against local democracy. The EIP process appears to have been a waste of time and resources. The month of eloquent discussion and the winning of the argument count for nothing against an ill-judged government direction.
Those are environmentally independent commentators on this shambolic decision. Only the House-Builders Federation has said anything supportive about the Secretary of State's decision. That speaks for itself.
We are being forced to have the extra houses despite the fact that the basis of the house building allocation figures is being called into question. Dubious, trend-based household projections are too inflexible. We want figures based on housing need, not projected demand. If some Labour councillors in the north of England got their act together on renting out empty council houses that lie idle for months at a time, and used the brown-field sites in their cities better, we would not have these problems foisted upon us in the south of England.
The decision is an attack on local democracy, particularly against Conservative West Sussex county council. A plank of the policy on which it was elected was protecting the strategic green gaps, which are all too few, especially along the coastal strip.
It is difficult to see how the people of West Sussex have derived any benefit from the Government. Instead, we appear to be the major victims of a series of often dogmatic and ill-thought-out measures which disadvantage my constituents more than most. What have the Government got against Sussex? It started at the beginning of the Session with the abolition of the assisted places scheme. We have many fine schools in Sussex which have benefited many pupils from less well-off backgrounds, but that opportunity will now be lost.
The Budget in July included the abolition of tax relief for pensioner medical insurance policies. As I have mentioned time and again, Worthing has the highest proportion of pensioners in the country. It is no surprise, therefore, to learn that we have the highest proportion of pensioners with such medical insurance policies. We also have one of worst problems in the country in terms of waiting lists for treatment at our local hospitals. Given that more than 100,000 of those policies have already not been renewed, the impact on my part of West Sussex will be dramatic.
Recently, we have had the latest complete horlicks on beef, which affects many Sussex farmer—I will leave it to my colleagues to go into detail about that. Most recently, the proposals for the individual savings account are shambolic and will work particularly to the detriment of the older, prudent savers nearing retirement, of whom there are many in Sussex and in my constituency. Those proposals threaten to be a breach of trust and harsh retrospective tax legislation. They are seriously flawed and I hope that the Government will take full account of the many voices of opposition expressed in what I hope will be a genuine consultation process.
Finally, let us consider the council finance allocations, which were announced just the other day. The extra £16 million allocated to West Sussex will not even cover the inflation element. It will not cover the extra pupil spend in West Sussex and the extra costs that will be associated with the development of special educational needs as proposed in the Green Paper. That allocation will not cover the £3.4 million hole that has been knocked in the West Sussex pension scheme because of the pension tax announced in the July Budget. That allocation is equivalent to another backdoor tax, which is likely to be imposed to the detriment of my constituents because council tax bills are set to increase by between 10 and 12 per cent. Again, that is the result of standard spending assessment changes that favour Labour's northern friends.
Many other things have not helped West Sussex. You will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for believing that the Government have something Sussexist about them. My constituents are increasingly of the belief that they are to be the unwitting victims of new Labour's designs on the retired and other disabled, the environment-loving, prudent-saving, beef-eating and beef-producing, council-tax-paying, pension-fund-owning and interest-rate-sensitive folk of middle England, who just happen to live in one of the most beautiful corners of this kingdom.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall be brief because I know that the House also wants to hear the hon. Member for Belfast South (Rev. Martin Smyth), should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I had intended to raise two matters in some detail. The first relates to the concerns expressed by former prisoners of war about the continuing failure of the Government to meet their justifiable request that their salary deductions, taken from them during the war, should be restored to them. I hope to return to that matter on another occasion.
On occasions such as this there is a certain element of ritual. We are apparently arguing seriously that we do not want the House of Commons to rise for Christmas until it has debated particular subjects. Normally, if hon. Members thought that there was any risk that they might not get away in time for Christmas, they would not be seen in the Chamber for this debate. There is, however, a subject that I think should be debated, and time should be made available for it on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I would gladly give up the opportunity to spend more time with my family to come to the House to debate something that desperately needs to be discussed—the order implementing the beef on the bone ban.
That order automatically came into effect last night, but we have not even debated it. Its consequences for the rural community, and that far beyond it, could scarcely be more extreme. Last week, I went to my local market at Newton Abbott; at the weekend, I spoke to farmers; and I was present at a National Farmers Union rally that was held in the Grand Committee Room 48 hours ago. On each occasion, I met people who are concerned not only that their income might go down, but that their entire way of life will be devastated. Those people are looking into the abyss, and see that they might lose not just their business, farms, homes and the rest, but the way of life that they and their fathers before them have always followed. And why? It is due, latterly, to the implementation of a ban that was not even necessary. It would have been quite possible to give the public a warning so that they could make up their minds, but the Government chose not to do that. There may be reasons—ones which I might find incomprehensible—why the Government, when faced with the option to issue an warning, decided to impose a ban. Surely such a ban, whose impact is so crucial and critical, is something which we should have the opportunity to debate.
That ban is bad law, because, as one butcher asked recently, "How am I supposed to tell the precise age of an oxtail?" It is not good enough for the Government simply to say," It matters not. We have carried out our parliamentary duty. We have laid the order and we do not need to debate it." That is not the right and proper way to proceed.
I was unable to be present at a rally that took place in Exeter, which had been organised by the NFU, because I was committed to speak at a rally in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) attended, as did my wife, on my part, and she reported back to me. She told me that she had seen people, some of whom we have known all our lives, who were in a state of distress the like of which I have never witnessed. The new ban is the straw that will break the camel's back.
I find it simply incredible that we, on our salaries, can go off soon and enjoy Christmas with our families, when we know that all we have to face is the judgment of our electorate every five years—with the exception of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who has had to face it more often than some of us. Those poor farmers are facing a judgment, the results of which could be terminal, and that should be debated in the House.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution. I understand the argument about the restrictions on meat and I know that the concerns expressed would be echoed by many in Northern Ireland.
I should like to consider an old problem, the workings of the Child Support Agency. We have already heard today how different legislation passed by the House is not always thought out carefully and that establishing the CSA is one such example. We all agreed that something needed to be done, but, as a result, problems have arisen with the administration of it.
A constituent of mine provided for the family, but then things began to go wrong. Unfortunately, it would appear that the CSA is prepared to listen more to the mother than to the father. It is investigating that man without investigating the mother's statements.
Such problems are coupled with others that I have discovered. For example, when the Benefits Agency says that a child is receiving benefit, the CSA has no alternative but to accept that that individual is a child. That happened in one case despite the fact that the CSA was advised on more than two occasions that the child had left school, although the mother claimed that he was still attending. When documentary evidence was presented to the CSA, it did not follow it through. I have written constantly to the CSA office in Belfast about that case, and it has finally agreed to re-examine it. Surely greater care should be taken in providing child benefit to children who are past the age of normal school education and are not in further education.
I appreciatedthe contribution from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), because it is necessary for the House to tackle the problem of personation at elections. It was thought that it occurred only in Northern Ireland, but we were all aware that it has taken place in England, Scotland and Wales. It is nearly time for the House to provide foolproof identity documentation, rather than leaving it to the presiding officer to make a challenge that cannot be followed through there and then.
As for bad legislation, we had devastating riots in Londonderry last week. I understand that business leaders and the great and the good in the Churches now say that those who organise parades or demonstrations should be responsible for the damage. I ask the House not to go down that road, because it would be a charter for the rioter.
If there are those who are prepared to riot and destroy property, the organisers of that activity and those perpetrating it should be held responsible in law, rather than those who have a legitimate right to parade, protest or demonstrate. If we went down the other road and allowed a rioters' charter, we would be failing our people in our democratic structures.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I begin by paying a very real tribute to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for their admirably succinct speeches, in which they both made powerful points.
In my winding-up speech, I shall try to refer to all the hon. Members who have spoken, but I must first point out that it was a couple of nights ago that we had the formal vote on whether we should rise for the recess on Monday. I rather regret the change in the procedures of the House that prevents a vote at the end of this debate, because it would have been good to register a protest.
I object to the fact that we are rising on Monday, not because I mind being here but because it has come about as a result of the Government's inept management of their timetable. We were brought back from the long recess much later than we normally are and now we are bringing all Members—and, more important, all the members of staff who serve us so well and so selflessly—back on Monday for just one day.
I warned the Leader of the House that I would raise the point, so I am not being discourteous. It is a pity that we should go to all that trouble and expense merely because the Government could not get their legislative act together more effectively. I tabled a question to the right hon. Lady

asking what estimate she had made of the costs that will be incurred as a result of the decision that the House should sit for a single day. I also asked whether the figure included an estimate for travel expenses for Members.
I was asked to delete the second part of my question, because a colleague had already asked it. I readily agreed. However, the answer to my question referred only to that second part, saying that it was not possible to provide a realistic estimate of travel costs for one day's travel to and from Westminster. That is nonsense. We need to know what the total cost will be.
I say this in a gentle spirit, because I do not want to spoil the season of good will, but I hope that the Government will get their act together better next year and that we shall move towards a more strictly defined parliamentary year. That would benefit all Members and those who serve us.
The problem is not that Members wish to be on holiday early; many of us will have to abandon the Christmas visits that we like to make to places such as residential homes, prisons and hospitals. This year, many of us will not be able to do what we would like to do in that regard.
The debate began with a plea, in a powerful speech by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for the banning of asbestos in all its forms and ended with a plea for the abandonment of the ban on beef on the bone. I hope that the comments of the hon. Member for Tooting, based on much investigation and experience and on his work in the Council of Europe, which is greatly appreciated, will be taken to heart by his colleagues on the Front Bench.
As for beef, I hope that, during the season of Christmas when, I trust, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have a happy time with his family and some pleasant meals, he will reflect on the enormous damage that he has done by his precipitate action and panic measure.
Every Member who decides to smoke sees a warning on the cigarette packet when he or she buys one. We know that there is a risk. I recently tabled a question relating to the 120,000 people who died from smoking-related illness in 1995. The risk associated with beef on the bone announced in the House a fortnight ago is infinitesimal. We are not even sure there is a risk—yet, as a letter to one of the papers said yesterday, we have reached the ultimate nanny state in which our meat is to be cut up for us. That is nonsense and the damage that is being inflicted by not allowing people to choose is out of all proportion to the risk. A great industry is being put in severe jeopardy.
My first reaction on hearing the announcement of the ban was to ring my wife and instruct her to ring our butcher and get as much beef on the bone into our deep freeze as possible. I am glad that she did, because I am now told that those of us who have beef on the bone in the deep freeze are allowed to exercise our judgment as to whether we eat it. Incidentally, I wish that the Prime Minister had presented me with the 15 lb piece of beef that was delivered to Downing street the other day instead of putting it in the dustbin.
Beef is an important issue. Many other important issues have been touched upon. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) talked about appointments to various health service trusts. I have never believed that people should be appointed to public bodies on the basis of their political beliefs. It is a great


pity that, over the years, we have departed from the system under which a Conservative Government appointed Alf Robens to run the National Coal Board and a Labour Government sent Sir Christopher Soames as ambassador to Paris. In each case, the Prime Minister of the day chose the man best suited to the job.
My right hon. Friend cited a number of people she appointed to health service trusts when she was Secretary of State. She mentioned Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman and several others. It is a great pity, to put it no higher, that the Government now appear not only to have embarked on a purge of those who were previously appointed, but to be so cavalier in their attitude to those people's public service that they learn about their replacement through telephone calls from their successors. That is not acceptable.
I have a great belief in the ideal of public service. Public service should be encouraged wherever it is found. I do not mind what the political affiliation of a man or woman appointed to a public body is so long as that person is dedicated to public service and is willing to serve. Purging the health service of those who have given a great deal will do it a great disservice.
I shall say little about the speech made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). I am sorry he is not in his place now. I do not like to be unkind, especially at this time of year, but in my notes I wrote that here we had a prig being sanctimonious. In his absence, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that if he ever finds himself in any trouble, personal or any other sort, he is treated with a little more charity than he displayed this morning.
I do not know all the rights and wrongs of the Aitken affair. Jonathan Aitken was and is a friend of mine, although I find some of his apparent actions incomprehensible. To presume guilt and condemn someone on the Floor of the House before we know whether charges are to be preferred is an abuse of the privileges of the House.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) explained to me that he would not be in his place for the winding-up speeches because he is attending an important meeting of his party. He made a splendid speech, as he always does on such occasions, in which he made a plea for a co-ordinated energy policy. He made no apology for plugging coal and I hope that when the Minister replies he will give some encouragement to the pilot scheme for which the hon. Gentleman argued with such understandable passion.
I shall referlater to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but first I want to comment on the interesting speech made by the new, or rather the re-elected, hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). It would be churlish not to congratulate him warmly on his decisive victory, and I do so without reservation.
The hon. Gentleman brought to the attention of the House in a most appropriate manner the shortcomings of our petition system. As he said to me privately after his speech, he would have been more than happy not to have taken his seat had we had a system for investigating petitions quickly. I think that we should have such a system.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on the problem of personation, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South. Most of us prefer not to recognise that problem, but we should recognise it and the points that he made should be taken to heart. I thank him for raising the issue and I hope that action will be taken.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), who is a fellow Staffordshire Member, referred to the problem of compensation for people who face the loss of home or business because of road building and other public works schemes. A number of motorways have been proposed for or put through my constituency, so I echo his remarks. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take note of the hon. Gentleman's points.
I cannot begin to touch on all the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who took us from Kyoto to suicide via vitamin B6, Cyprus and the Palace theatre, Westcliff. If he can produce such a veritable tour de force in 10 minutes, he should be at the Palace theatre, Westcliff. I hope that he will repair there during the pantomime season.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made an important speech, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. They were both concerned about natural justice to Members of the House who find themselves in difficulties and the need for a proper appellate system. As I said when I wound up the debate on the so-called Hamilton affair, I believe that we should examine these matters most carefully.
It is no criticism of any of the individuals involved, still less of Sir Gordon Downey, to say that what has happened recently leaves a lot to be desired. Although we have not yet come to any absolute conclusions, the comments of my right hon. Friend about an appellate body have much to commend them. My personal view—I do not speak for my party—is that a group of three or four distinguished former hon. Members from the various parties, who know the ways of the House, presided over by a former Speaker, might be a good appellate body. We must come up with something, because we should not leave matters as untidily as they have been left following the Hamilton affair.
All I would say to Mr. Hamilton is what I said in the House a few weeks ago. I hope that he and all those with whom he comes into contact will recognise that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, for all its imperfections and for all the imperfections of its report, made it plain that it would not have recommended expulsion from the House. I hope that he will derive some comfort from that, although I find some of his actions difficult to understand.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) spoke with authority about building societies and the concept of mutuality. It behoves us all, especially Conservative Members, because we have done so much to further the property-owning democracy, to realise that our efforts would not have met such success were it not for the building society movement. There is a continuing place for that movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) talked about the impact of potential housing development in West Sussex. Anyone who has the privilege of representing a rural area and who


values the importance of the green belt knows how crucial it is that insensitive development does not swallow up the finite resources of our beautiful countryside and fine farmland. My hon. Friend has the great good fortune of having a beautiful constituency and I well understand why he feels its vulnerability and feels obliged to speak as he did this morning. He has my full support.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to the Child Support Agency. There is not a Member in the House, of any party, who has not had some unfortunate examples of the agency's operations. Hon. Members in the previous Parliament agreed that the Child Support Agency should be established. When the previous Government introduced proposals, they found support from the then Opposition. We all have some responsibility, especially to ensure that the system continues to be improved. Improvements have been made in recent months and I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends who were in government before May for setting many of those improvements in train, but the agency is still far from perfect.
I have one minute before the Minister speaks. I understand why the Leader of the House is not present: she has explained to me that she has Privy Council duties. I should like to take this final opportunity to wish the Minister, hon. Members who are present and those who are not an extremely happy Christmas. Let us hope that we return in good spirits and in good humour in the new year.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I apologise for missing two speeches. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, the Leader of the House has unfortunately to attend to Privy Council business. I am afraid that I am an inadequate deputy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) raised the issue of asbestos. I have to state an interest, as I am the honorary secretary of the Liverpool and district asbestos victim support group. I hold that post because, seven years ago, I watched my brother John die from mesothelioma, which is a terrible, debilitating disease. Anyone who has seen someone suffer from the effects of ingesting asbestos must have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. The Government are determined to deal energetically and decisively with all aspects of the asbestos problem. Ministers are currently considering advice from the Health and Safety Commission on a mechanism and timetable for a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of asbestos products. The Government plan to make an announcement early in the new year.
I was more than a little amazed to hear the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) refer to the politicisation of appointments to health trusts. I remind her that, a few years ago, I tabled about 800 questions in a short space of time to find out who sat on health trusts and various other quangos. For a very long time, that was a secret garden for hon. Members and for the public.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that health trusts will meet in the open. Appointments to trusts will be on merit, which has purportedly always been the case, but was allegedly not the case under the previous Government. I am happy to

tell the right hon. Lady that we have issued a consultation paper on all quangos, including health trusts. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been excluded from a health trust because of the political bias of sponsoring Ministers or anyone else.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Lord Nolan commended the mechanisms used for health service appointments. He ruled out allegations of political bias and commended the further improvements that had been introduced. That being so, will the Minister take up the many examples that I can feed to him of people who have been treated in a discourteous, not to say offensive, manner?

Mr. Kilfoyle: In the spirit of openness that characterises the new Government, I am perfectly willing to look into any suggestions of abuse or discourtesy. That is the difference between us and the previous Government.
My hon. Friendthe Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) caused some controversy. A senior detective from the specialist operations department has been appointed to investigate the allegation to which he referred. The matter is being pursued as expeditiously as possible. When the investigation is complete, a report will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. That is all that needs to be said about that matter now.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who has apologised for not being here for the winding-up speeches, were concerned about the procedures that surround what has become known as the Neil Hamilton affair. In its report on Mr. Hamilton, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges said that it would review its procedure in the light of some of the issues that the Hamilton inquiry raised. In his speech, the Chairman of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that the Committee would report to the House when it had completed its review. It is appropriate to await the outcome of that review, at which time the House can decide what, if anything, needs to be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) habitually raises the issue of the coal industry of whose interests he has been a long-time and heroic defender. He also spoke about Remploy. I am sorry that he has left the Chamber because I should have liked to tell him that I, too, have a great interest in Remploy. It has a large factory in my constituency and I am aware of its work.
The Government's objective is to ensure secure, diverse energy supplies at competitive prices and we certainly want coal to play its part in meeting that objective. The Government cannot intervene directly in negotiations between coal companies and generators, but we have made plain to all involved our concern about the future of the United Kingdom's coal industry.
We have taken some key actions to create a level playing field so that coal can compete fairly. They include challenging German and Spanish coal subsidies so that we may maximise markets for UK coal, and removing by way of the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill the advantage that nuclear energy and imported nuclear energy from France enjoy by exemption from that levy. We are asking the gas regulator to examine the resale provisions of early


taper-pay gas contracts to establish whether they distort the market against coal, and we are examining many other issues.
In the context of Remploy, the Government are making available an extra £195 million from the windfall levy to pay for a range of measures that will help disabled people and those with long-standing illnesses to get work and training.
The hon. Member for Winchester twice over (Mr. Oaten) raised some important issues. Before entering Parliament, I was a professional, or perhaps unprofessional, organiser for the Labour party. I was an election agent and I understand perfectly the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman faced. He spoke about people with posters who signed other people's nomination forms. I do not know whether that is a comment on their political literacy or on the system. The Government appreciate that there are real and major problems.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that she encountered a problem in her constituency where a candidate stood under the name of Fran Taylor. My right hon. Friend was No. 7 on the list and Fran Taylor was at No. 6 and Fran Taylor's name was called. Those who are mindful to deceive find it easy to put an idea in someone's mind.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about personation. We laugh at the old adage, vote early and vote often, but it is not funny when such actions determine the outcome of an election. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering measures such as descriptions on ballot forms. Hon. Members will remember the use of the term "Literal Democrat". Rolling registers must also be considered. The Home Office working group on electoral procedures will shortly meet under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State, my near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). That group will look at electoral matters to determine how the House could solve some of the problems that have been adumbrated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) spoke eloquently and passionately about a subject that is near to his heart—a new road. The roads review is broadly based and we need to ask fundamental questions in the context of an emerging integrated transport policy. The Government believe in consulting the public on the roads programme. That is a novelty compared with the actions of the previous Government. We sponsored two public consultations on the issue that my hon. Friend raised and the results are being carefully considered.
Where do I begin to reply to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)? Do I start by taking responsibility on the Government's behalf for eradicating suicide this Christmas or should we revisit Kyoto and ensure that the Americans whole-heartedly agree with all that we say? Overnight, should we resolve all the difficulties in Cyprus? Resolution of the vitamin B6 problem would probably be simple. The hon. Gentleman presented a long list. I was baffled by his comments about the Palace theatre in Westcliff. I assume that he wants money for the theatre from the Eastern area arts board. I understood that such matters were deliberately placed at arm's length so that Ministers could not interfere, so it would be unprofessional and unethical for me to venture an opinion.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), I once again admit complete ignorance of all matters relating to mutual and non-mutual societies. I shall undertake to speak to my ministerial colleagues in the Treasury and give my hon. Friend a substantive reply.
The speech by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) was almost an attack on the Government and I thought that the Opposition had finally found their feet. There was a swing of 11 per cent. to Labour in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so not everybody was anti-Labour. There was a sniff, a slight smell, of NIMBYism in his view. I am certainly not a Sussex-phobe. He spoke about an extra 30,000 people and about the fumes from their cars, but such problems do not stop at the borders of West Sussex. They are part of a rather wider issue which the Kyoto conference tried to address.
The hon. Gentleman engaged in unwarranted attacks on northern authorities. There are about 800,000 vacant homes in Britain, and 667,000 of them are privately owned. The Government are trying to draw attention to that imbalance and to engage in small, symbolic actions. That is why I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing at this morning's Centrepoint opening of accommodation for the homeless at Admiralty Arch. The idea that vast hordes of northern people are making their way here to steal homes from Sussex people is rather beyond the pale.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the assisted places scheme. In opposition, I was one of those who worked on the policy to remove that scheme, which was invidious in educational and social terms. Happily, it has been removed.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) raised an issue that is dear to his heart and to those of many other Opposition and Labour Members. New experimental evidence shows that BSE infectivity may be present in tissues that are normally removed when beef is deboned. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has emphasised that the risk to consumers is very small, and we can agree on that. The Government's first priorities are the protection of the consumer and the maintenance of public confidence in food. Action is being taken, although I admit that it is precautionary, to ensure that consumers continue to get the highest protection against BSE. We will not play fast and loose with public health. No responsible Government could knowingly allow infected material into the human food chain. That would betray not only our standing with consumers but our trading position in Europe.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly drew the House's attention to Child Support Agency services. There is no disagreement on the matter between the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), and me on that subject. All aspects of the agency's services will be examined in the Government's comprehensive spending review, which will seek ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness, especially in areas that are of greatest importance to parents. Like the hon. Member for Belfast, South, I have regularly had the distressing experience of trying to explain to my constituents the inequities of the system as it currently obtains.
In reply to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I say that it is not possible to provide a realistic estimate of the cost involved in bringing the House back for one day. We know that we have to come back to deal with important business in the heavy legislative programme of a Government who are committed to change. Finally, I wish him, Opposition Members, my right hon. and hon. Friends and the staff of the House a very merry and happy Christmas.

Mediation Services

Dr. Brian Iddon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the subject of mediation services in the Adjournment debate. My aim is to highlight the good work that all mediation services carry out, and to suggest that they are so cost-effective that the Government should consider promoting them in future.
When I suggested the title for this Adjournment debate, I wondered which Minister would attend, as mediation services encompass a wide cross-section of the Government's corporate activity; and I am happy to see the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), present today.
Mediation is a process whereby a third party helps two disputing parties to resolve their disagreements. The disputing parties—not the mediator—determine the final outcome. Currently, mediation is used most commonly to resolve disputes between neighbours, and I shall concentrate on that aspect today. However, mediation is also applied to victims and offenders, bullying in schools, family feuds, divorce, domestic violence and commercial and industrial disputes.
In mediation, the mediator approaches the first party, who has been referred to the service, then the second party, and attempts to get both parties to proceed to mediation. About 30 per cent. of those who agree to mediation meet face to face; of the rest, about 40 per cent. are dealt with by shuttle diplomacy, and various alternative solutions are found for the remainder. Mediators usually follow up cases after initial agreements have been reached, to ensure that they are long lasting. Agreements often involve reparation—for example, an apology or repair of damage.
Only a small number of neighbour disputes are referred—89 per cent. are resolved informally between the neighbours themselves. Apart from self-referrals, most referrals come from the local authority, especially housing and environmental health departments, but they also come from the police and citizens advice bureaux.
The cause of 60 per cent. of complaints is noise—for example, from barking dogs, hi-fi music, loud television sets, burglar alarms, noisy children, do-it-yourself activities and household appliances. Boundary disputes, untidy gardens, overhanging trees and the parking of vehicles are other prominent causes of dispute.
Neighbour disputes can escalate out of control. They can become extremely costly both to the disputants and to the agencies involved, and they sometimes result in violence or even fatalities. At the very least, they can cause untold misery to many of our citizens—for example, a boundary dispute involving a fast-growing conifer hedge began in 1979, lasted 17 years and resulted in £100,000 in court costs.
I joined Bolton metropolitan borough council in 1977. For 20 years, I have served its housing committee; I was its vice-chairman for two years and its chairman for 10 years from 1986 to 1996. I soon realised that elected members, but more especially housing and environmental health officers, spent a disproportionate amount of their time dealing with neighbour disputes.
I therefore decided to set up what became the first local authority-run neighbour dispute service in the entire United Kingdom—Bolton Neighbour Dispute Service, or BNDS. Its co-ordinator, Sue Parry, was appointed using inner-urban programme money in September 1991, and soon afterwards we appointed an administrative assistant, and 25 volunteers were sought and trained.
On 29 June 1992, a pilot scheme was launched in the Deane and Daubhill areas of my constituency. In the first year, the budget was £29,300, and in the first six months 45 cases were dealt with. Bolton was careful to involve all householders, whether public sector or private. The budget for 1995–96 was £40,000, 50 per cent. being met from the housing revenue account and 50 per cent. from the general rate fund.
Today, BNDS operates across the 110,000 homes of the borough. Although it is sponsored by the housing department and the council, it operates independent of the council. Up to a maximum of 42 volunteers have now enrolled for training. They have a job description, and handle one case at a time, often working in pairs.
The Bolton service has been a model for the start-up of many similar schemes throughout the country. In the three months from April to June 1997, 49 cases were closed. Of those, eight were not thought suitable for mediation, eight first parties withdrew, and in a further eight cases, the second party was unwilling to participate. Of the remainder—that is, the 51 per cent. of referrals that agreed to participate—24 cases out of 25 were successfully resolved, which is a success rate of 96 per cent. That period snapshot is not atypical of the service.
Mediation grew out of the United State and Australia. Neighbour mediation first appeared in the United Kingdom in 1980; by 1985, only three operational schemes were known; in 1996, there were 54 schemes; and today, in 1997, there are nearly 100. In other words, growth has been rapid in the 1990s. It is interesting to note that, in the early days, the Quakers showed the most interest in mediation.
Despite the cost-effectiveness of mediation services, funding is the major constraint on growth. Some schemes have been supported by charitable trusts, but most rely on rather insecure local and national government grants. "Neighbour Disputes" by Jim Dignan, Angela Sorsby and Jeremy Hibbert, published by the university of Sheffield in 1996, is one of the few detailed pieces of research in this area, and it compares very favourably the costs of mediation with those of alternative approaches involving the courts and various legislative procedures. It would be nice if the Minister would look at the problem of funding, and promote mediation as an extremely cost-effective method of dealing with many issues.
An umbrella organisation called Mediation UK developed in Beaconsfield from a Home Office secondment. Its headquarters has been in Bristol since 1991. Such a national organisation is essential to promote best practice, organise training and, perhaps most important, provide accreditation for new and old organisations alike. Mediation UK has a funding problem too.
I shall briefly mention one spin-off from the BNDS—the "bully-free zone" programme, of which I am proud to be a patron. Bullying in our schools has been in the

headlines recently. In Bolton, a grant was obtained to introduce into eight volunteer pilot schools peer mediation, whereby trained senior pupils mediate between bullies and victims. Of course, serious cases are referred to school staff. Initial signs are good, and, if the pilot scheme proves successful, it will be expanded to all schools that want to participate.
I am pleased to announce that, last week here in London, that pioneering scheme was honoured for outstanding citizenship at a major awards ceremony in memory of murdered London headmaster Philip Lawrence. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Mr. Lawrence's widow, Frances, presented a plaque to four young people who had participated in the scheme.
I hope that I have demonstrated the usefulness of mediation services and I look forward to the Minister's response. I might add that Lord Woolf speaks very favourably of ADR—alternative dispute resolution—in his interim report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales, "Access to Justice", published in 1995.
I thank the countless individuals, including thousands of volunteers, who have helped to make all the mediation services such a great success across the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on his success in securing this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the issues he has raised about mediation services—an extremely important subject.
As my hon. Friend said, mediation is one of those subjects that cut across a number of Government Departments. He indicated some curiosity as to which Minister would reply, so I should start by offering him an explanation of why I am here.
I am replying to the debate because my Department has been actively involved in encouraging and promoting mediation as a possible alternative, which may be more appropriate than the statutory routes and sanctions when dealing with some types of neighbour disputes. That is particularly true in relation to disputes involving noise, but it may also apply in some other disputes involving general anti-social behaviour.
Complaints about neighbour noise have continued to rise in recent years. My Department set up a working party in October 1994 to investigate a variety of options for strengthening the current controls over neighbourhood noise nuisance. The working party considered, in particular, whether there were alternative, informal remedies that might provide swifter relief for noise sufferers.
In its conclusions and recommendations, the working party acknowledged the value of informal remedies, such as mediation, to deal with complaints of noise nuisance. The working party agreed that local authorities and the public should continue to be encouraged to resolve neighbour dispute problems informally, where this was appropriate.
In November 1994, the Department issued an information paper, "Mediation; Benefits and Practice", to chief environmental health and chief housing officers


in local authorities in England and Wales. That paper encouraged local authorities to consider mediation as a possible option to resolve noise and other neighbour disputes. In addition, my Department, when responding to noise complaints, includes in correspondence leaflets that mention
the services of mediation as a solution to disputes.
The working party also recommended that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health should produce best-practice guidance for distribution to local authorities on the management of noise services. Within the "Noise Management Guide", which was published in February this year, the institute has recommended that
mediation should be considered as an integral part of the local authority response to noise complaints".
My hon. Friend referred to the work of the Bolton neighbourhood dispute service, which he helped to set up. I congratulate him on that initiative; I was pleased to learn of the project's success.
In my constituency, there is a very successful mediation service called the Greenwich mediation service. The organisation is funded from the housing revenue account, and currently only handles disputes involving council tenants. However, I understand that the source funding may be changed to enable the service to be available to all borough residents, as is clearly the case in Bolton with the initiative that my hon. Friend helped to establish.
My hon. Friend referred to research on neighbour disputes undertaken by the centre for criminology and legal research at the university of Sheffield. That was jointly funded by the then Department of the Environment and the Lankelly Foundation. That research considered the cost-effectiveness of mediation and alternative approaches.
The report's findings call into question the effectiveness of both the formal and informal approaches conventionally adopted for handling neighbour disputes. It suggests that mediation might offer a more constructive solution to the problem where both parties are willing to give it a try.
The findings also suggest that there is genuine scope for significant savings to be made by using mediation in appropriate cases, especially in relation to some of the more intractable neighbour disputes with which housing and environmental services are routinely called to deal. The report proposes a strategy for increasing the number of cases that could be dealt with by means of mediation, and identifies a number of suggestions for further research.
In order to publicise the message contained in that report, the then Department of the Environment sent in November 1996 a copy of its executive summary, and a leaflet which gave advice to those considering setting up a community mediation service, to each chief housing and environmental health officer of every local authority in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
In March 1996, the DOE appointed the Building Research Establishment to undertake research that would increase the understanding of domestic noise complaints. The research was designed to address a number of issues, including the reasons for the complaints, the main types of noise sources, how the noise was measured and assessed, and the most effective methods adopted to resolve disputes. The project was to include an

exploration of the effectiveness of current procedures for dealing with domestic noise complaints from the perspective of the investigating officer, the complainant and the person complained about.
The BRE research has found that there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes a satisfactorily resolved complaint between all three parties. On the ground of common sense, that is hardly surprising.
On mediation, the BRE believes that there is a need for guidelines that clarify the point at which mediation can be recommended without exposing the investigating officer to complaints of maladministration. It also concludes that the resolution of complaints by direct negotiation between neighbours should be facilitated, wherever appropriate. That endorses the view expressed by my hon. Friend when describing the work of the Bolton mediation service. The Department has only recently received the BRE's final report, and we are considering how best to publicise the report and what points need to be addressed.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concerns about funding, both for local mediation services and at a national level. At the local level, it is up to each local authority to decide how much is spent on which service in the light of local needs and priorities. Many local authorities, such as Bolton metropolitan district council and my authority in Greenwich, have established or supported local mediation services.
At the national level, my Department has been funding the umbrella organisation, Mediation UK—to which my hon. Friend alluded—since 1 April 1994, under the environmental action fund. That funding runs for a three-year cycle, and Mediation UK is now in its third year of EAF funding. In total, it has received more than £90,000 from my Department in that period.
For 1997–98, Mediation UK set a target of helping to bring 18 new community mediation services into existence, bringing that up to a total of 90 centres by 1998. It has already helped to set up 17 centres so far in 1997, and may well exceed its target. I believe that that is money well spent.
Mediation UK has submitted an application for a further three-year period of EAF support. It has submitted a bid for a grant of £50,300 in 1998–99. However, EAF funding is subject to great competition. My Department receives a large number of high-quality bids seeking the limited funding. We shall be considering all applications for EAF grant early next year, and hope to announce the successful applicants in early February. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand that I cannot pre-empt the process by saying whether Mediation UK's application is likely to be successful. However, I stress that we expect voluntary bodies to look widely for other sources of funding, including grants or sponsorship from the private sector and charitable trusts.
My hon. Friend referred to the contribution of the right hon. Lord Woolf in his interim report on alternative dispute resolution to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor's Department has taken forward Lord Woolf's recommendations on ADR in several ways.
First, the Lord Chancellor's Department has published a booklet entitled "Resolving Disputes Without Going to Court" to help to make the public more aware of the possibilities that ADR can offer. I understand that the


Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has recently sent copies of the booklet to new hon. Members for use in their constituency offices.
The booklet lists different organisations, including Mediation UK, that offer mediation, conciliation and arbitration services for non-family disputes. It gives a brief description of those services, and sets out some of their advantages and shortcomings. It is available from county courts, the royal courts of justice and many citizens advice bureaux and law centres. Copies have also been placed in the reference sections of public libraries, and have been sent to business links and business connect centres in England and Wales respectively. The Scottish Courts Administration has produced a similar publication covering Scotland.
Secondly, the Lord Chancellor's Department has recently consulted on case management proposals that provide an automatic three-month stay on request, if parties wish to use ADR. The Lord Chancellor is considering the responses to that consultation with a view to implementing the proposals in April 1999 as part of his package of civil justice reforms.
Thirdly, in November 1995, approval was given for a pilot scheme for alternative dispute resolution at Central London county court. The scheme has been running since May 1996. The Lord Chancellor's Department is funding academic research into the scheme to evaluate the impact of mediation on the outcome of cases.
Of particular interest and significance is the fact that the researcher is investigating why parties and/or their representatives have rejected the offer of mediation. Further pilot schemes are running at Bristol county court and in the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chancellor will examine the results of the research closely before deciding

his next steps. He is concerned to assess whether current schemes result in successful and satisfactory outcomes and save money for both the parties concerned and the civil justice system.
My hon. Friend referred to his role as patron to the "bully-free zone" programme in Bolton. I was interested to hear about the pilot scheme introducing peer mediation in schools. Bullying and peer mediation in schools are, of course, matters for my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment. However, I know that the Department takes the issue seriously, and I understand that it has made an anti-bullying pack available to all maintained schools in England.
It is important for schools to decide which strategies for tackling bullying best meet their pupils' needs and circumstances. In some situations, peer mediation may provide the answer, but in others a different approach may be necessary and more effective. Over the coming months, colleagues at the Department will consider what action might be taken to help schools to tackle and reduce bullying.
I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that the Government fully recognise the value that mediation can bring to the community. We do, however, recognise that using mediation to resolve a dispute may not always be possible or successful. Nevertheless, it is certainly one of the preferred options, and a much more civilised method than a confrontational approach.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): As the Minister for the next debate is not yet with us, I shall suspend the sitting until 1 o'clock.

Sitting suspended.

Funeral Services

On resuming—

1 pm

Mr. David Chidgey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. What happens when an hon. Member is ready to make a speech but the Minister is not present? Is there any point in continuing without a Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Standing Orders of the House are quite clear: we do exactly what we have just done.

Mr. Chidgey: I will make my remarks and hope that someone will respond to them in due course.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that is causing widespread concern—namely the lack of regulation of the provision of funeral services. That concern is felt by the users of the services, who are the relatives of the deceased, and by the providers of the services, the funeral directors themselves. It is also now felt by charity workers who find themselves involved in selling prepaid funeral plans on commission for their charities. There is also concern in the financial services sector which finds that prepaid plans are being sold in the same way as financial services but without any statutory control.
I will speak for only about 10 minutes because I know that the Minister—who is not in his place—is keenly aware of the issue and I want to leave him as much time as possible to outline his proposals.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): The Minister is in his place. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the House whether the account in the Evening Standard, to the effect that he has already raised the issue in the House, is accurate. It is not customary to use the past tense; hon. Members usually make a speech first and then issue a press release.

Mr. Chidgey: I am sure that I can resolve the confusion after I have finished my speech. I apologise for not recognising that the Minister was in his place; there was some confusion due to his late arrival.
One of the main causes of concern is cold calling by telephone—for instance, selling memorial plaques months after a cremation has taken place but while the bereaved are still suffering the trauma of losing a relative. The Mail on Sunday featured the case of Christine Hall from East Sussex, who received a mail shot advertising a prepaid funeral service. A few days after she had thrown it away, she received a telephone call from a charity which wanted to know whether she had received the literature it had sent her and whether she was interested in buying such a plan. She was asked whether she had booked a burial plot for herself and her husband and told that if she had not she should do so quickly. Christine is 62 and was upset by the timing of the call—and rightly so, as her husband Henry is 89 and seriously ill. It was a traumatic experience for them.
The Daily Mirror reported the case of Vanessa Rylance from Birkenhead, a woman whose 77-year old mother was diagnosed as having cancer. Days after her mother had left hospital, Vanessa received a hard-sell letter suggesting that she take out a plan to cover her death.
I will deal now with the concerns of the providers—the traditional, family-run funeral firms. It is now common knowledge that funeral provision is big business, and multinational organisations are moving into the market. In fact, some 25 per cent. of the business was bought by one company, which led to the involvement of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In due course, that company was required to make some divestments to bring it within the regulations.
There is a lack of transparency about the ownership of funeral firms. As the Minister will know, there is a requirement for owners of a company to make their names and interests clear. When family businesses are bought out, there are far too many instances of the old name still appearing over the door of the funeral parlour; it is not until one goes into the back room that one finds a small plaque revealing the true owners of the firm.
There is also a lack of transparency in the prices. Far too often, people telephone funeral directors and receive a low quote, but the full price is not made clear. Once they get into the parlour, they are persuaded to spend far more on the funeral than they intended. The price quoted is the price of the funeral alone and does not include the cost of the burial plot, the church service, a book of remembrance, which is apparently becoming the vogue, or the headstone. There are disturbing cases of headstones being offered at a price way above that which would be charged if one went directly to the stonemason. In addition, plots rented in a crematorium have a habit of increasing in price over the years until the rents are far greater than was ever imagined.
There is also concern about mergers in the funeral business. Many family firms are being merged into international corporations, leading to lack of choice and competition. If one organisation owns the funeral parlours, crematoriums and cemeteries and provides the prepayment plans, that clearly means the removal of choice and a reduction of competition. The most worrying development, however, is that the same firms are now winning contracts for NHS bereavement services.
National health service hospitals are now in the business of contracting out those services that are not considered core health services—one of which is the bereavement service. Hospitals are putting the provision of such services out to tender, and it is understood that in one case a firm has offered to provide the service at a zero price. Why should anyone provide a service for nothing? Unfortunately, a large hospital can expect hundreds—perhaps even a thousand—deaths per year, and that number of funerals is big business.
It is very difficult for a bereaved relative or the relative of someone who is dying to distinguish between a bereavement counsellor, who is a trained psychologist and understands the effect of trauma, and a bereavement officer employed by a huge corporation whose main objective is to sell funerals.
My final and most important point relates to the marketing, selling and management of prepaid funeral plans. There has been some unfortunate negative publicity in the press about the selling of such plans by a firm called


SCI, an American funeral giant which is an offshoot of Age Concern. Age Concern is a highly respected charity which does a great deal of good work. It aspires to raise standards and introduce quality into the provision of funeral services.
Age Concern is a highly commendable charity, but it is impossible for an organisation to control the activities of over-zealous salesmen at the point of sale, and there are too many cases of elderly people suffering distress when subjected to the hard-sell approach. That distress is keenly felt by the charity workers. Negative publicity works against charitable aims, and I hope that Age Concern will be reviewing that aspect of the matter very carefully. Locking in prepaid funeral plans to one provider of funeral services is fundamentally anti-competitive. Anyone purchasing such a plan is obliged to use SCI-owned funeral parlours, so the plans limit choice and remove competition.
About £250 million is now invested in prepaid funeral plans, and there seems to be no regulation of the management of the funds thus amassed and no provision for purchasers to benefit from the profits accrued by those investments. The plans seem to be totally free of the requirements applying to other financial services under the financial services legislation.
Two years ago, the Office of Fair Trading recommended regulation of the funeral services industry. I understand that one of the Minister's colleagues is keenly interested—

Mr. Ivor Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my interest in regulation, because I wrote to him last week when he secured this debate. In his reply to me, he said that he could not allow me any time in the 15 minutes allotted for his speech because of the many Opposition Members who wished to speak in the debate. Where are they?

Mr. Chidgey: That was a spurious intervention. The point that I made to the hon. Gentleman—in a private letter which was written with the best of intentions—was that many hon. Members had asked to speak in this debate and I felt that it was only fair to say no to them all or there would be insufficient time for me to say what I hoped to say in 10 minutes, thereby allowing the Minister ample time to reply. That point should have been well taken by the hon. Gentleman.
I understand that the Minister's colleagues are well aware of the issue. When in opposition, the Government stated that they would examine the matter very soon after coming to power. I hope that the Minister has come today with some firm proposals and a timetable for legislation to regulate provision of funeral services, and in particular to deal with the issue of transparency of ownership of funeral parlours, crematoria and cemeteries, so as to maintain choice, competition and quality.
I hope especially that the Government have proposals to draw a clear line between NHS hospitals' bereavement counselling services and contracted-out bereavement services—which is really just another name for the commercial opportunity provided for large funeral directors to access markets for thousands of funerals.
I hope also that the Minister has proposals to regulate prepaid funeral plans so that investors in those plans, like investors in other schemes, will be covered by the Financial Services Act 1986.
I apologise to the Minister for not recognising him at the start of the debate, but I thought that the matter was the responsibility of one of his colleagues.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for the opportunity that he has given to the House to review this important issue. I welcome also the keen interest taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) in the funeral industry and in the problems that people may face when dealing with it. With more than 600,000 funerals organised every year in Britain, the subject touches the lives of millions of relatives.
People tend to use funeral directors at a time of maximum stress, and at such a vulnerable time it is important that they should receive proper protection. Fortunately, British funeral directors have a very long tradition of consoling relatives and of organising funerals with all the care and attention that is so important at that time. I want the high values that traditional British funeral directors have long upheld to be maintained. Some family firms have seen those values passed down through generations.
Almost three years ago, in 1995, the Office of Fair Trading reviewed the United Kingdom funeral business. The then Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg, said:
the vast majority of those in business are honest, competent and concerned to meet consumers' needs responsibly.
That is as true today as it was then. However, Sir Bryan also warned of the risks facing the public from dishonest or incompetent funeral directors—who are only a tiny minority. He said, however, that the risks are significant.
It took the previous Government more than 12 months to consider Sir Bryan's report. They started consultation last year, but the findings were never published or shared with the public; they were—if the House will forgive the pun—buried.
On 7 May 1997, shortly after the general election, I met the new Director General of Fair Trading, John Bridgeman. We discussed, among other things, the 1995 report. I asked officials at the Department of Trade and Industry to examine the issue afresh and to report to me the options open to the new Government.
I have contacted all the main funeral trade associations, asking them what action they are taking to ensure that people who buy funeral plans are fully protected.

Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister perhaps clarify when he will be able to reach a conclusion on the recommendations made to him by his officials?

Mr. Griffiths: On 1— December 1997, I responded to a parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Gentleman. We appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the issue, and we hope to reach a conclusion as early in the new year as possible.
Because of previous inaction, it is very important that the director general's report on action to deal with findings that are now more than three years old should be updated so that we do not try to take action against problems which have changed. I do not believe that problems no longer exist—we know that they do—but we should take that important opportunity to update our knowledge of the situation.

Mr. Caplin: In my hon. Friend's deliberations with officials and industry, will the establishment an independent ombudsman service be considered so that real consumer protection can be provided to those about whom the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) is so concerned?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is a great advocate of such a service, which he asked me about on 1 December. As I said then, I would certainly welcome the emergence of an independent scheme to protect consumers.
To avoid creating any doubt among those who provide funerals—funeral directors and prepayment plan providers—I have written to the main trade organisations asking what action they are taking to ensure that people who buy funeral plans are fully protected. I am seeking confirmation that in the case of prepaid funeral plans there is a binding obligation on the funeral director to perform the contract irrespective of any payment that the funeral director receives from the plan provider, and that that obligation is enforceable by the plan holder or his or her estate.
There are therefore three parties to the agreements: the person who takes out a contract, or his or her relative; the plan provider, who initially receives the money; and the person—the funeral director—who will provide the funeral. I am investigating whether, as I hope, the funeral director has a binding agreement with the person who has paid for the plan. It is up to funeral directors to ensure that they receive the money from the plan provider.

Mr. Chidgey: I draw the Minister's attention to plan providers—the person or organisation with whom the money is invested. I am concerned to hear the Minister's proposals for regulation of the sums involved, which are now considerable. Has he—from his deliberations and discussions—anything more to offer on regulation?

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I certainly hope to be able to offer the hon. Gentleman the plans. That was the exact subject of his previous helpful intervention, to which I replied. It goes to the core of the issues that are being considered and I shall make an announcement in due course and in the appropriate way. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking into that matter.
In the meantime, so that the House does not think that the Government are not taking the firmest possible action to reassure people, we have been in touch with the funeral trade associations proposing how they should fulfil their contracts and asking them for assurances that funeral directors will honour their contract with the relative or bereaved person in respect of the plan provider. Naturally, the major plan providers are companies of considerable repute. It is important that the funeral director is aware that he or she has a contract with the person who has taken out the plan and that he can recover the money from

the plan provider. If that is not the case, I am seeking their confirmation that, in any case, they are obliged to carry out the funeral.
The hon. Gentleman rightly touched on other matters of concern, including marketing practices. I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority asking whether it is taking action to ensure that any or all such advertising fully complies with its code. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a charity. Where plan providers are linked to a charity, I have asked the Charity Commission to advise on whether there is any abuse or malpractice.
The hon. Gentleman raised two specific cases involving Age Concern. I received a letter from Age Concern giving its side of the story. In the first case that he mentioned, the newspaper article suggests that the person was the recipient of an unsolicited mailing. Age Concern tells me that its records show that she responded to an information leaflet about the Age Concern funeral plan carried in My Weekly, that she requested a brochure with further information and was telephoned to check whether she required more information. There was no question of a hard sell of a plot and the conversation ended amicably.
In the second case, a different newspaper report suggested that the person had received an unsolicited mailing about a funeral plan shortly after being diagnosed with cancer. I understand that that person was initially mailed as an existing Age Concern insurance customer and subsequently received an information pack about the Age Concern funeral plan. We have been informed by the charity that of course she will not receive any follow-up mailing. Age Concern apologised if she or her family were upset. However, the charity informs me that it has received no direct complaint from the person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred or from her family. The problem that we all face as responsible right hon. and hon. Members and Ministers is that if an hon. Member raises two cases which, for all the sensationalism that there may have been in newspaper reports, do not appear to stand up, it is important—and I urge all hon. Members to do so—either to correct the account that we have received from a highly responsible charity or to provide other cases. My door is never shut to cases of abuse of the nature that was alleged in the newspaper article.

Mr. Chidgey: I certainly endorse what the Minister has said. I have met the chief executive of Age Concern and I know the sincerity of that charity's approach. My point was not in respect of the merits of the cases; I was drawing attention to the fact that, whether or not the publicity was accurate, it still occurred. I am concerned about its effects on the reputation of the charity.

Mr. Griffiths: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. It would have been helpful if he had drawn attention to the other side of the story—that of Age Concern—as I have done.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to other important matters. There must be transparency in contract terms and trust arrangements. It is vital that the inclusive costs of any funeral and any additional costs are included in the prepayment plan or that any omission is made perfectly clear to those considering taking out the plan so that they can seek a more comprehensive plan or a cheaper plan that is not all-inclusive. Of course we want to ensure that information is available on the fees paid to plan providers.


It is also important that all the aspects that I have raised with the Advertising Standards Authority and the Charity Commission fall within existing, well worked and acceptable codes.

Mr. Chidgey: May I return to a previous point? We have looked at the Minister's proposals for regulation of the providers of pre-paid funeral plans and I am grateful for his answer on that. However, by purchasing a plan from a large organisation, one is inevitably locked into using one of its funeral directors. The issue is whether that limits competition and choice. Is it possible to separate investing in a pre-paid funeral plan from using a particular funeral provider? A national charity may be in a good position to consider whether a funeral director should have to subscribe to certain standards in order to be one of the recommended, preferred or accepted funeral directors able to access a pre-paid plan purchased from a separate or third party. I hope that the Minister can also address my problem in respect of the NHS bereavement services.

Mr. Griffiths: I will do so as soon as I have answered the hon. Gentleman's previous question. As part of the investigation by the Director General of Fair Trading into the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report and the subsequent dealings with one major provider that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind, the director general is responsible for monitoring any undertakings given and a review of the position is about to be undertaken by the director general's officials. There are concerns about transparency in respect of price and ownership. If such concerns persist in the industry, the Director General of Fair Trading will consider whether any other issues need further consideration or study.
The hon. Gentleman raised a valid point about the role of hospitals. A complaint has been lodged in respect of one hospital—the Central Middlesex Hospitals trust—because of its decision to provide mortuary and bereavement services. The Director General of Fair Trading has considered the arrangements under competition legislation,

but found no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, either on the part of the hospital or by the successful contractor, which would justify the use of the director general's competition powers.
As always, however, if further evidence is presented by any aggrieved party, hon. Members or anyone else, the director general will examine the matter afresh. In that respect, and in respect of advertising and marketing reports, it is important to put into perspective what has been done and the action that has been taken by the Government and organisations such as the Office of Fair Trading and to examine all the ramifications and aspects of the issue.

Mr. Chidgey: I commend the Minister's openness in discussing the issue and, as the months go by, I hope to have the opportunity to consider the possibilities of regulation and legislation in more detail, and in a more consultative way, perhaps outside the House.

Mr. Griffiths: Certainly our examination of the issue will not lack detail. I should summarise for the House the steps that we have already taken and where we will go from here.
We have been in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority in writing about alleged abuse by one provider and possible breach of the authority's code. I hope to have the opportunity to report its findings in due course. Likewise, we have been in touch with the Charity Commission about concerns that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere about a commercial arrangement between charities and funeral providers which may not be fully transparent. Of course such an arrangement must be fully transparent, as I am sure that all hon. Members would agree.
We have taken an important step in contacting all the major associations of funeral providers to ensure that they spell out to their members their legal obligations, which may be wider than some hon. Members had thought. As I have said previously, the way ahead is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Burnley Valuation Office

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this important issue. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider the proposal to close Burnley valuation office. I first became concerned about the proposed closure in December 1995; the proposal was first made around May that year. I have become increasingly concerned about the matter this year, partly because the decision was becoming imminent. Indeed, the decision has now been taken and the Burnley office is set to close.
The Burnley valuation office is an important office, which has a staff of about 32 people. It serves my constituency, the borough of Burnley, Blackburn, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Rossendale and Pendle—an area of 500,000 people. It serves that area very well and is well respected, but it is due to close in March 1999. Although I shall specifically speak about the Burnley office, I recognise that some of the issues may apply to other proposed closures. I do not know the details of those other cases; I am particularly concerned with the Burnley office.
This morning, I received a fax that informed me that Veronica Lowe, the chief executive officer of the Valuation Office agency, surprisingly announced her resignation on Friday. She had been very much involved in overseeing the proposed changes. That announcement followed another one last week. Mr. Mike Jordan, the director of business resources, announced that he is to take early retirement in March 1998. He has masterminded—if that is the right word—the changes. The name of the programme of changes is Newvos—new valuation offices. Veronica Lowe's resignation was surprising because, only a few months ago, we were dealing with an acting chief executive officer, Mr. Peter Upton, who has since retired. Veronica Lowe had not held the post for all that long before Mr. Upton became the acting chief executive while she was off.
Having dealt with the issue through a fair amount of correspondence—I shall refer to some of it—I do not believe that the case has yet been made for the closure. It is my view that the Minister has been ill advised. Indeed, some people think she may have been misinformed. I felt that it was only right to call this debate to force the issues into the open and allow them to be scrutinised.
In May 1997, Mr. Varley, the then district valuer and valuation officer in Burnley, wrote to Mr. Upton, who was at that time director of operations. Incidentally, Mr. Varley has also retired. He was succeeded for a short time by Mr. Speight and subsequently succeeded by Mr. Borland, who had been the district valuer in Burnley some time previously. All the national and local staff changes are quite puzzling. I mention that particularly, because the way in which the staff are being moved around like pawns must be most disturbing for them and must introduce a certain inconsistency.
In his letter in May, Mr. Varley made a very detailed case for the Burnley office to remain open. He said:
We were pleased to hear from Mike"—
that is Mike Jordan, to whom I referred—
that no final decision to close the Burnley office has been taken, and that it is recognised that Burnley is an 'extremely efficient office'. Mike Jordan's express wish that this efficiency be replicated nationwide is an essential element of our own thinking.

Mr. Varley detailed why the Burnley office should remain open under the headings of cost effectiveness, customer service and business development. He said that, due to the 23 miles between Burnley and Preston, travel costs would substantially increase, as would the amount of non-productive time spent on case work. He referred to items such as office rental, which in Burnley is only 50 to 60 per cent. of the cost in Preston. Rents in Preston are higher because it is on the InterCity network and at a major convergence of the motorway network. He also pointed out that car parking is significantly cheaper in Burnley.
Mr. Upton replied on 25 July to the representations that I had made in the interim:
The proposals for streamlining the Agency network of local valuation offices were detailed … in a letter of 19 July 1995
He said that, on 10 May 1996, the Valuation Office's former chief executive, John Langford—yet another name which has come into the picture—wrote to me in response to the concerns that I had expressed at that stage. Mr. Upton continued:
No final decision on implementing will be made before the views of all concerned have been carefully considered.
Mr. Upton wrote to me again on 5 September:
A consensus has been reached with the trades unions representing Valuation Office staff, and … will include the merger of the office that covers your constituency with adjoining offices.
That two-page letter does not say what will happen to the Burnley office until appendix B, which I think is a strange way of going about things. The Burnley office will be merged into the Preston office. Preston will become a group office with satellite offices in Lancaster, Carlisle and Ulverston. Those three satellite offices are all in west Lancashire. The Burnley office covers east Lancashire, which is very different. As I said, Burnley is effectively a city of 500,000 people, although it is covered by six different local authorities.
On 25 September, I wrote to Mr. Upton and sent an almost identical letter to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I made a number of points in favour of the reconsideration of the case:
I do not believe closure and moving the office into extra space at Preston will save money. Office space at Preston is dearer than in Burnley. I understand staff in Burnley did put forward proposals on how money could be saved. Have these proposals been considered? … The service level at present is excellent, I feel it will be worse at Preston. It will certainly be less local and that is contrary to policy aims of the new Government.
On coming into office, the Labour Government stressed the provision of services near the local people, wherever possible. I accept that that is not always possible, but we should aim for it.
My letter continued:
It will also mean in the long run less job opportunities here"—
in Burnley—
as the job range is very narrow.
North-east Lancashire, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is in his place, is heavily dependent on manufacturing jobs. There is nothing wrong with that—indeed, I have worked in manufacturing myself—but we need a wider range of jobs. While the majority of employees of the valuation office will move to Preston, when they retire in future years the jobs will probably be filled by people from the west side of the county, not the east.
Burnley borough council's local taxation officer, Michael Frazer, wrote to me to express his concern. The council has pursued the issue for some time. He made an additional point about the impact on local government in east Lancashire, because all the local boroughs felt that they had received excellent service because the office was based in east Lancashire. The council wrote to me again on 13 October to make a further point:
Consultation is currently taking place about the possibility of a Council Tax revaluation and future revaluations — If such revaluation becomes a reality, it appears that the Burnley office would have a crucial role to play in the process.
I then consulted other Members of Parliament in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle had already expressed concern independently about the proposal and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) have also raised issues arising from the proposed closure. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary wrote to me on 18 November:
I am generally content with the thrust of the change proposals concerning improved service".
She continued:
A ballot of the Agency's Trades Union membership has now been conducted and the structure, based on 24 Groups over the country with a total of 85 offices, has been accepted.
In the intervening period, I received several letters from Veronica Lowe and Michael Jordan, all of which I considered unsatisfactory. I wrote back on one occasion to say that I felt that they had responded inappropriately to issues raised by a Member of Parliament. Their letters had dodged questions about costs, which are crucial to the proposed closure of the Burnley office. They were also not prepared to answer questions about how much extra office space would be needed at Preston; what extra costs would be involved; or what the union vote really meant.
The latter question is important, because the union vote has been interpreted wrongly. I have received a letter from the Preston branch—the very office that will become a group office—which stated:
the overwhelming number of the staff who work here"—
in Preston—
are appalled that Burnley office is to close down, indeed at a recent ballot on the office closure programme 90 per cent. of staff voted against the proposals.
I then received a letter from a higher level in the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union, Inland Revenue Group, which stated:
Firstly the trades unions have not accepted the restructuring proposals, the ballot question asked members to 'acknowledge that the new VOA"—
the Valuation Office—
Group Structure will be implemented', and sought to allow national officials to continue negotiations on the many issues the restructuring has thrown up. That does not constitute acceptance.
The union's claim is that the ballot was about whether—if the restructuring was forced on members—the union should be involved in discussions about what should then happen. It is realistic for the union to say that it wants to be involved, but that does not mean that it can be claimed that the union approves the change that will take place.
Many questions still have not been answered. What are the redundancy costs involved in closure, because some staff will not be able to move? How much new office space will be required in Preston and how much will it cost? What are the implications of additional travel costs? Has the fact that rent will have to be paid in Burnley until 31 December 1999, even though the building will not be used, been taken into account? Is it not a fact that savings of 21.6 per cent. have been made between 1995–96 and that it is planned to save a further 7 per cent. through productivity gains, not including the restructuring proposals?
The chief executive has gone. The person who proposed and masterminded the changes has also announced that he will go. Is not it now time to throw the proposals in the bin, reconsider the situation and decide on the right way forward? Even if other valuation offices must close, there is a good case for the Burnley office, which has provided such good service in the local area for so many years, to stay open to continue to provide that service.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I shall try to answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), especially about the trade union, because it needs to make up its mind what it has agreed and what it has not. I shall return to that point later.
My hon. Friend knows the background to the introduction of the new office structure for the Valuation Office. He mentioned staff turnover, and I hope that he will accept my word, as a friend as well as a Minister, when I say that I cannot discuss the specific points that he made about staff. He mentioned the chief executive of the Valuation Office and her decision to resign last week. I can assure him that her resignation is not connected to the Newvos project.
My hon. Friend also referred to the project director and his intention to leave, which is an unconnected personal decision. I understand the point he makes about the apparent turnover of staff, but I assure him that that is not connected with this issue.

Mr. Pike: I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and I accept 100 per cent. what she says and the spirit in which it was intended. Nevertheless, the changes provide an opportunity for a rethink—although I accept that that change is totally unrelated and has been made for personal reasons.

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is highlighting what may be the concerns of others, and I hope that my comments will help to calm things down during a difficult time for many members of staff.
I will not go over the background to the reorganisation, as my hon. Friend has—in exchanges of letters over the years—explained the origins of the proposals and their purpose. However, in terms of the Burnley case, he does not accept the purpose, which is to improve the quality and level of service, to make it more flexible, to respond to changing work loads and technologies and to ensure that the agency is well placed and has a firm footing for the future.
I turn to the question of the trade unions and the rethink for which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has asked. On my appointment, I met the management of the Valuation Office agency and asked them to reassess the plans on Newvos. I also met the trade unions and heard their comments. I clearly explained to the trade unions the problems with regard to the inherited budgets for the running costs of Departments—of which they were aware—and our manifesto commitment.
I asked the unions and the management to go away, reconsider the proposals and come back with an agreed set of proposals, which they did. A number of offices that were due for closure—regrettably, Burnley was not one of them—were removed from the closure programme, and the number of groups in the structure of the Valuation Office was increased. I concentrated particularly—as my hon. Friend, the management and the unions urged me—on making sure that the Valuation Office was building on its efficiency and had a firm and secure base for its staff. At no point have the unions indicated to me that they are unhappy with the negotiated settlement—in fact, I have been led to believe that the opposite is the case.
I wish to refer to Mr. Peter Upton, who retired from the agency but delayed his retirement because the chief executive was off ill. This was a time of change for the agency and we are grateful for the hard work that Mr. Upton undertook. He wrote to every single employee of the Valuation Office to explain the package that had been agreed. The package was not only about removing some of the offices that were due for closure after the reassessment; it indicated the process that would need to be in place to support staff and to ensure that the change was managed properly so staff did not feel insecure or uncertain about their future.
We all accept that change is difficult, particularly for those who are experiencing it. If my hon. Friend has not seen the letter from Mr. Upton, I will send a copy to him. I hope that he will forgive me for sending him another letter.
There are currently 33 staff in post at the Burnley office, five of whom are part time. All staff have received the location transfer preference form. From the preferences known so far, most of the staff have indicated that they are prepared to transfer to Preston. One has requested a transfer to Halifax, and three to Manchester. Only three have suggested that they could not move to Preston, one of whom has said he would like to be considered for early retirement. I hope that my hon. Friend sees nothing untoward in that request, which I am sure fits in with the member of staffs current life style. It has nothing to do with our forcing him out of the agency. Two others have not specified an alternative, and discussions will have to take place to ensure that their cases are handled properly.
There is enough room in the Preston office to take the staff from Burnley. As my hon. Friend knows, the lease at Burnley is up for renewal. I do not have the exact date

to hand, but the lease was due to expire close to the time of the closure programme. There will be minimal redundancies following the move, and the question of the rent at Preston has been dealt with.

Mr. Pike: I have been told by people not only from the Burnley office but from the Preston office that there is not enough room to fit in the 30-odd staff.

Dawn Primarolo: This matter will not be resolved between my hon. Friend and me, because my information is that there is enough space. I will write to him, and his point is on the record. I shall seek clarification.
On the question of travelling costs, the staff are mobile. I do not know where they all live, as opposed to where they work. If that information is available, my hon. Friend Burnley will receive an explanation. The decision on the Burnley office was based on questions of accessibility and future development in terms of changing work patterns of the Valuation Office. In addition, the recently opened M65 motorway, which links Burnley with Blackburn in east Lancashire to both the M6 and the M61, will significantly improve communication links.
I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked closely at the issue and we have considered the decisions made since the election. The questions of efficiency, the service to the local area and the costs have been satisfied by the proposals which have been agreed within the budgets that the three groups for which I am the responsible Minister—revenue, customs and the Valuation Office—have to continue to meet.
Having talked to the unions, my understanding is that they accept the agreement, and they entered the discussion on how best to deal with the proposals. They were not press ganged into it. They did so in order to reach agreement—otherwise, they would still be arguing. I accept that some local offices may not agree, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would send me a copy of the letter he has from the PTC. So that we can make plans, some clarification may be required about whether it holds constant views.
I regret to say that I do not think there is a case for reopening the decision on the Burnley closure, which will take effect in spring 1999. I accept, and I have impressed on the management of the Valuation Office, that it is crucial to support the staff so that they feel secure and we have better services at the end of the process. I undertake to respond to any questions to which my hon. Friend feels he has not received an adequate answer. It was right for him to bring the debate to the House today, and I hope at least that I have explained what we have done.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor was asked—

Food Standards Agency

Mr. Fabricant: What representations he has received on his proposals for a food standards agency. [19600]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): As chairman of the relevant ministerial committee, I have received representations from a wide range of bodies, from consumer organisations to food manufacturers. There is clear agreement on the need for reform and strong support for the establishment of a food standards agency.

Mr. Fabricant: Following the debacle over the beef-on-the-bone crisis, in which confusion has been piled on confusion, and given that the Government have been unable to enforce the ban, what difference will a food standards agency make?

Dr. Clark: It ill becomes of member of the Conservative party, which presided over food scare after food scare, including salmonella, BSE and E. coli, to lecture the House on the work of a food standards agency. If we had had such an agency, the loss of confidence that the British people have experienced in our very fine food industry might well have been averted.

Mr. Barnes: Was not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food considered under the previous Government to be in hock to the producers at the expense of consumer interests? Is not the food standards agency an arrangement whereby the rights of consumers can be fully considered? What is the likely relationship between my right hon. Friend's Department and MAFF? Will there be a division of authority, or will there be co-ordination?

Dr. Clark: When the food standards agency is established, through the House, we will transfer ministerial responsibility for it from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of Health, but we envisage the agency as an autonomous body, able to get the very best scientific advice and to act in a completely independent manner to try to restore public confidence in the quality of the food that the British people eat.

Mr. Tyler: Has the Minister seen the series of important articles in The Guardian over recent days, about the food revolution, and specifically about genetically modified foodstuffs and organisms? Can he give me a double assurance: first, that the new food standards agency will have as part of its remit consideration of those extremely important issues, as all hon. Members, and the public generally, are concerned about the extent to which we have mechanisms to ensure the long-term safety of such genetic engineering; and, secondly, that before we

get the new agency someone in Government will take an holistic view of the problems, and will take a responsible attitude and be accountable to the House?

Dr. Clark: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance on both questions. The committee that I chair realised that it would be some time before we had a food standards agency in place and we were determined to ensure in the interim that we had a sensible arrangement to try to deal with food issues. We have brought together under one chain of command the food scientists and the food experts from the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so an holistic view is, indeed, being taken on such issues. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that issues such as novel foods will fall within the remit of the food standards agency.

Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister agree that had we had a food standards agency, the BSE problem would not have arisen in the way that it did? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a public inquiry into the BSE crisis would be helpful under the forthcoming freedom of information Act?

Dr. Clark: I believe that if we had had a freedom of information Act, the House and other experts might have been able to have access to information that might have allowed us to avert the terrible BSE disaster. I hope that, in the near future, we will be in a position to announce an inquiry into the BSE affair.

Mr. Maclennan: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that the food standards agency should take the sort of decisions that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took in banning beef on the bone, or would it be an advisory body, leaving the public to form their own conclusions about the facts put before them?

Dr. Clark: Ministers have to follow the best scientific advice they are given. Their first priority is the protection of the consumer. The food standards agency would be an independent body. It would have access to the finest scientific and other advice. It would make recommendations to the House because, clearly, only the House has the power to legislate should that be needed. It would be a brave Minister who went against the advice of such an august body.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the extension of the principle of open government. [19601]

Dr. David Clark: My proposals for a freedom of information Act, set out in the White Paper "Your Right to Know", would transform government in this country from a culture of secrecy to a culture of openness.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to transform this Government from a culture of secrecy to a culture of openness. In that vein. will he consider the role of the Paymaster General in government, now that the hon. Gentleman has been given a role in considering closing the loopholes in offshore trusts when he has numerous offshore trusts and benefits


from them financially? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that conflicting role, given that the Paymaster General's solicitors have denied that he has control of the Orion trust yet he is able to influence that trust in relation to what shares are bought? Surely, in the interests of open government, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should now require the Paymaster General to make a personal statement to the House so that these matters can be cleared up once and for all.

Dr. Clark: The Paymaster General abided by all the rules of ministerial conduct. He took advice from Her Majesty's Treasury, which he then followed.

Mr. Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of the freedom of information White Paper "Your Right to Know" is an extremely important event in open government? Does he further agree that that contrasts directly with the attitude of the previous Administration who did not believe in freedom, except for the favoured few—and who certainly did not believe in information because they presided over the most centralised and secretive Government in living memory?

Dr. Clark: The Government believe that, in a modem democracy, the citizens should have a presumption of access to information held by public bodies unless there are very good reasons why they should not have that access.

Mrs. Shephard: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, last week we supported his proposals for more open government. In the light of his statement last week, can he explain to the House why, if the previous Government were able to calculate and make public the effect on employment of different levels of a national minimum wage, his Government, committed as he said last week to more open government, refuse to do so?

Dr. Clark: We debated that issue very fully in the House yesterday evening. Right hon. and hon. Members can raise other points in Committee.

Fiona Mactaggart: What steps he has taken to make his Department more open. [19602]

Dr. David Clark: I have published a White Paper on freedom of information which will open up not only my Department but the whole of government and public service. I intend that my Department will set an example on openness. I have therefore undertaken to publish the background material relevant to the formation of the White Paper's proposals.

Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response and the openness that he has shown by publishing background material on that and on the millennium question. Does he agree that, before his proposals on open government and the reform of quangos take effect, public bodies have the opportunity to be more open and to release more information as a matter of course, as he has shown? What steps can he take to ensure that that happens?

Dr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that public bodies become much more proactive in

releasing information. We must practise what we preach on open government. When I announced our assessment of how Departments were dealing with the millennium problem, I published all the reports on the work being done, some 1,200 pages. The internet is also a useful tool in lifting the lid on secrecy. There is no reason why more information should not be put on the net. I was pleased that when we published the freedom of information White Paper, we included for the first time a reference to a debate on the consultation documents relating to it, which are running on the internet.

Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to open government extend to leak inquiries? Does he believe that the public have a right to know who is being questioned in leak inquiries, particularly when that may involve Ministers and their answers to questions?

Dr. Clark: There is a long agreed system for inquiries into leaks. That will continue, as it has continued over many years.

Mr. Llew Smith: When my right hon. Friend launched his freedom of information proposals last week, he said that they would cover the commercial activities of British Nuclear Fuels plc, but a reply from the Minister for Transport in London says that details of future plans to transport plutonium fuel
are a commercial matter for BNFL."—[Official Report 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 156.]
Can my right hon. Friend say who is correct?

Dr. Clark: We have not excluded BNFL from the scope of the White Paper. Obviously, any information requested from BNFL would be subject to the same substantial harm test as applications to any other body within the scope of the Act.

Mr. Gorrie: In his good work of trying to create more open government, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making the access of hon. Members to civil servants' information simpler so that we do not have to go through the tortuous route of devising questions, which wastes much more of people's time? In local government, the right of each councillor to access to officials works well. Would he, in a sensible manner, allow that to happen with civil servants?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point, with which I have considerable sympathy. I am well aware that many hon. Members feel that the relationship between them and officials in central government is different from their experience in local government. We can learn much from local government. I accept that there are difficulties on issues such as ministerial responsibilities, but I believe that we should work towards making purely factual information from civil servants much more available to hon. Members. I emphasise that we must bear in mind the fact that civil servants are responsible to Ministers, who act as their spokesmen.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Bayley: If he will make a statement about the most recent recipients of charter mark awards. [19603]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): This has been a very successful year for the charter mark awards scheme, with 365 awards being made—the highest number ever. There were record numbers of applications from virtually all types of public service, including a successful one from the Benefits Agency in York and the North Yorkshire guidance service, which serves York. York is, of course, the original home of the citizens charter idea.
The charter mark is making a real contribution to improving public services and we intend to build on that success by developing it and making it more effective.

Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition of the fact that it was a Labour city council that invented the citizens charter. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff of the Benefits Agency office in York who won a charter mark? Does he agree that staff in Benefits Agency offices are under a lot of pressure, because when people are poor and without money they get desperate and pushy in those offices? If staff at a Benefits Agency office have won an award for excellence in public service for dealing sympathetically and well with people in such circumstances, they deserve praise. Does my hon. Friend agree that their excellent standards deserve to be spread throughout the Benefits Agency so that all people in need get the service that they deserve?

Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend will be aware that a successful charter mark award ceremony held a fortnight ago last Monday was attended by nearly 100 Members and represented a recognition of the real achievements of those at the sharp end. That is why we are trying to cater for a charter programme that works according to a bottom-up approach to public services rather than opting for the policy of the Conservatives, who tried to impose their will on those who had the extremely difficult job of delivering services in difficult circumstances.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Canavan: If he will make a statement about progress with legislation for freedom of information. [19604]

Mr. Sutcliffe: If he will make a statement on progress towards legislation on freedom of information. [19607]

Dr. David Clark: The White Paper "Your Right to Know" sets out the Government's clear and radical proposals for freedom of information. We now invite comment and debate. In the light of that, I will publish a draft freedom of information Bill in the new year.

Mr. Canavan: Although there will be a general welcome for the White Paper, why should there be a blanket exemption for the security and intelligence services and on information relating to the arms trade and the advice that Ministers receive from civil servants and policy advisers? Would it not be better to allow the commissioner or some form of independent panel to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not it is in the public interest to conceal such information?

Dr. Clark: I believe that we have produced a radical White Paper which will roll back secrecy in public bodies

across the country. The Campaign for Freedom of Information welcomed the proposals, which it said went further than it expected any British Government would ever go. We must set a new balance between disclosure and confidentiality, which is firmly weighted towards openness; there is, and needs to be, a balance.
As for the intelligence services, I must tell my hon. Friend that I am determined not to jeopardise national security. That is why that exclusion has been set out so openly and honestly. As regards detailed policy advice to Ministers, we believe that in a modern society the Government need space in which to do their business. That is why we have established a simple harm test in that case, but we have made it clear that factual and background information, which is given to Ministers as they form their opinions, should be made available.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I welcome the radical proposals in the White Paper. Is it not the case that my constituents, and many ordinary people, will benefit from them because they will have the right to access information about themselves?

Dr. Clark: Yes. In drawing up the White Paper, I tried to look at it not through the eyes of big business or the press but through those of the ordinary citizen. That is why it is clear, simple and straightforward. I want to get the message across loud and clear that the information is for the people, and for them first and foremost. That is why we have sought to minimise the cost and to make the system easier.
As well as publishing the White Paper in print and on the internet, we are distributing 40,000 copies of a leaflet explaining the main proposals. That leaflet is straightfor-ward and will be available in seven minority languages, in large print, in Braille and on audio cassette.

Mr. Ruffley: In view of the Minister's commitment to open government, will he tell the House whether the leak inquiry that he appointed last week has personally interviewed the Minister without Portfolio about the disgraceful leaking of the contents of the White Paper earlier last week? It is a simple question—yes or no?

Dr. Clark: There is a procedure for that sort of inquiry. I have handed it over to my permanent secretary, and it is not the job of a Minister to interfere with an independent neutral civil servant and tell him how to do his job.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he say a little more about the progress of the inquiry? He knows that I would not for a moment doubt his personal integrity, but is he completely satisfied that no ministerial colleague was involved in the leak last week?

Dr. Clark: My permanent secretary, whom I requested to look into the leak, is doing so, and is conducting a wide range of interviews. He has done that, and is still doing the work. It would be premature for me at this stage to give any disclosure of what conclusion he has come to. It would certainly be wrong for me to interfere in any way with his inquiries.

Service Delivery (Technology)

Mr. Rooney: What pilot projects are currently under way to develop the technology used in delivering Government services. [19606]

Dr. David Clark: There are currently five such pilot projects. Those are the intelligent form project, a joint working programme on touch-screen kiosks, a service electronically delivering geographical data, a rural sub-post office touch-screen kiosk, and an electronic delivery of land and property information in Stirlingshire.

Mr. Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that I am a technological imbecile, and that many customers of the Government do not have the skills to deal with such technology. What efforts have been made to make it user-friendly?

Dr. Clark: It is important that we ensure that the technology that we are using is simple, straightforward and varied. That is why we are encouraging pilot schemes throughout the country at both central and local level. When we talk about technology, that includes forms of technology that even my hon. Friend can use to great effect, such as the telephone and the television. Digital television will be introduced next year, and the possibility of interaction through television screens by the use of a console means that many people will find new technology well within their grasp.

Non-departmental Public Bodies

Mr. Terry Lewis: What action he has taken to increase the accountability of non—departmental public bodies. [19608]

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government are determined to ensure that quangos are made more open and accountable. In the consultation paper "Opening up Quangos", published on 11 November, we set out a number of proposals to do so. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on the same day the publication of "Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies: 1997 Report", which is a clear signal of the Government's determination to make executive NDPBs more transparent, accessible and accountable to the taxpayer.

Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but in the quest for greater transparency, will he ensure that quangos open their doors more to the public? Perhaps a Select Committee would be an appropriate way of overseeing and supervising the quangocracy.

Mr. Kilfoyle: We intend to make the quangos more accountable to Parliament, as well as to the general public. We shall do that through a number of measures, including perhaps extending the remit of Select Committees—that is in the consultation paper. Also, for the ordinary citizen, we want to ensure that each body publishes an annual report and a summary of its meetings, and, where practicable, has open meetings to which the general public are invited.

Magistrates (County Palatine)

Mr. Pike: What representations he has received regarding the appointment of magistrates in the County Palatine. [19609]

Dr. David Clark: During a visit to Lancashire earlier this autumn, I had discussions with the chairmen of the five advisory sub-committees, lieutenancy staff, the chairman and justices chief executive of the magistrates courts committee and the chairman of the Lancaster bench regarding the appointment of magistrates. I have also corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) regarding the balance of the St. Helens bench.

Mr. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that magistrates benches in Lancashire are becoming less representative of the areas that they serve? How can we ensure that more Labour people and more working people are appointed as magistrates, so that magistrates benches better reflect the population of the areas that they serve?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. I am concerned that the balance was lost under the previous Government. For example, fewer than 5 per cent. of the local councillors in Burnley and Pendle are Conservatives, whereas there are almost as many Tory magistrates on the local magistrates benches as there are Labour and Liberal Democrat magistrates put together.
The guidance on the appointment of magistrates is clear. On political affiliations, it says:
It is important that justices should be drawn, and should be known to be drawn, from all sections of the community, and should reflect all shades of responsible opinion.
To try to open up the magistracy, we have raised the age limit on first appointment from 55 to 65. We want to attract many of the people who have taken early retirement, and whose great experience could be well used on the various benches in Lancashire and elsewhere.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that he, like the Lord Chancellor, can appoint only those people who apply to be magistrates? If Labour Members think that not enough Labour people apply to the justices bench, the remedy lies in their own hands.

Dr. Clark: We accept the need for a better political balance on magistrates benches throughout the United Kingdom, in compliance with the directions of the law of the land. The situation is out of kilter. The total number of Labour and Liberal Democrat magistrates for the St. Helens bench only equals the number of Conservative magistrates, in spite of the fact that the ratio of local councillors is 44 Labour to one Conservative. The problem is that not enough names are being put forward.

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the House would come to order. Conversations are much too noisy, and it is impossible to hear the Minister.

Service Delivery (Technology)

Mr. Timms: If he will list the transactions with Government which will be capable of being undertaken electronically in the first stage of his programme. [19610]

Dr. David Clark: I am aware of the good work being done by the Newham advice arcade, and the work that is being done with the touch-screen kiosk in that area. Much good work is being done at local level throughout the country. I chair the central-local partnership ministerial group on public services and public service delivery, whose aim is to learn as much as possible from those projects. We intend to conduct an audit and an assessment of what is being done to spread the best practice in electronic service across the country.

Mr. Timms: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is not the problem that little progress was made in this area under the previous Government? We had to depend on local initiatives to make the running in the electronic delivery of services. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the Government have a lot to learn from what has already been achieved at local level?

Dr. Clark: Generally, and especially in the field of information technology, central Government can learn a great deal from our local government cousins. Last week, I launched an intelligent form for the electronic notification of self-employment. One form filled in electronically will be dispatched instantaneously to three separate Government Departments. That will replace paper access, which at times required up to 14 forms, and which accounted for a vast number of errors, often reaching a rate of 40 per cent.

Non-departmental Public Bodies

Mr. Steinberg: What measures he is taking to broaden the social background from which appointments to non-departmental public bodies are made. [19611]

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government are committed to attracting a broad range of applicants for public appointments by the use of advertising and by encouraging members of under-represented groups to nominate themselves for the central and departmental lists of candidates.

Mr. Steinberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government staffed quangos with Tory party members or supporters? For example, in my constituency not one Tory candidate has been elected to any public body, whether to a county council, district council or parish council, yet the quangos contain an unrepresentative number of Tories. Will he ensure that in future there is a social and political mix on quangos so that people in my area can feel confident that they are being properly represented?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government intend to ensure that appointments are made on the basis of merit, reflecting the skills that are needed and the interests of all stakeholders in our society, rather than on the basis of a partial approach to those appointments.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. McNulty: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. McNulty: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter from Sir Patrick Neill's inquiry to the treasurers of all political parties which asks all parties to supply information from 1992, from home and abroad, on all donations and from whom they come? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Labour party complies with that request? [Interruption.] I shall let the children settle down. Will my right hon. Friend exhort all other party leaders to do the same because if they do not, people will rightly ask, "What have the Tories got to hide?"

The Prime Minister: We welcome the consultation document that was published today by the committee on party funding. It is obviously important that, to do their job properly, the members of the committee should have all the information that they need. They have written to all parties requesting information about party income going back to 1992. That is entirely right. Speaking for the Labour party, I can say that we shall provide them exactly with the information that they require and I hope that all other parties will do the same.

Mr. Hague: Speaking for the Conservative party, I can say that we shall provide the Neill committee with all the information that it has asked for. As he raised it, I wonder if the Prime Minister has read the whole of what the Neill committee issued today. On the first page there is a section entitled "Honesty" which states:
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Since the new code of conduct for Ministers, which was drawn up by the Prime Minister, states that Ministers should remain entirely detached from Government decisions that could affect their private interests, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Paymaster General is entirely detached from decisions that could affect his private interests?

The Prime Minister: First, if I may, I should like to unite the House by offering our heartiest congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the celebration on Friday of his wedding. On behalf of us all, I wish him and his fiancée a very happy married life thereafter. Now I shall turn to his question. The answer quite simply is yes: I am satisfied of that.

Mr. Hague: On the first part of his answer, I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words. They give me the opportunity to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House who have been so kind to my fiancée and to me. I am delighted that you, Madam Speaker, will be joining


us at our wedding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I hope that you will not be required to call for order on that occasion. The Prime Minister will forgive me for suggesting that just as his honeymoon is coming to an end mine is about to begin.
On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, with which I was not quite so happy, normal hostilities will now resume. Treasury officials have admitted that the Paymaster General has been working on the law relating to offshore trusts. The Paymaster General has £12 million in offshore trusts. The Paymaster General has admitted to having influence over those trusts. By what twist of logic has the Prime Minister come to be satisfied that the Paymaster General is entirely detached from Government decisions on these matters?

The Prime Minister: First—not to carry on the discussion too long—the marriage that the Labour party enjoyed with the electorate is one that we intend to continue at the next election.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has followed the advice of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and has acted at all times in line with the ministerial code.

Mr. Hague: I have no doubt that advice has been taken, but look what the Paymaster General himself has said. He told journalists on Saturday that he had been working on policy which affected his own financial interests—he even told journalists that he could show them internal Treasury documents about it, which is an interesting admission in itself. That is what he said. How can that be squared with being entirely detached from Government decisions that affect him? Is it not time that the Paymaster General did the honourable thing and resigned?

The Prime Minister: No is the answer to that. There is a clear ministerial code and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has followed that ministerial code. I think that it is good that we have people who are highly successful business people and who have come to work for the Government. My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job for the country, without even taking a ministerial salary.

Mr. Hague: I think that that is good, but the Paymaster General is not an entrepreneur who has just been tempted into the Government; he has been a Labour Member of Parliament for 21 years. We have now established that the Prime Minister, almost alone among people who have considered these matters, does not think that there is a conflict of interest. Does he at least agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that the Paymaster General had said one thing and done another? If a conflict of interest is not a resigning matter in this Government, is gross hypocrisy a resigning matter in this Government?

The Prime Minister: No, that is not correct—[Interruption.] That is not correct, either in relation to what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is supposed to have said, or in relation to the point at issue.

Mr. Hague: What we have here is a Paymaster General who has put a new tax on middle-income savers, but has millions of pounds in an offshore tax haven; who has denied influencing his trust, but then admitted doing so; and who has claimed no conflict of interest, but has then

admitted working on offshore tax policy. Are not taxpayers throughout the country going to be appalled if he remains in office as Paymaster General, collecting their taxes? Is it not time, not only for him to become entirely detached from ministerial consideration of his own interests, but for him to become entirely detached from ministerial office itself?

The Prime Minister: The short answer to that is no. I do not accept that at all. In case anyone is interested in the facts, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has not avoided UK tax—he has paid probably more UK tax than either me or the Leader of the Opposition, as a matter of fact. He is a highly successful business man, he has contributed a lot to public life and he is working without a ministerial salary. I personally think that it would be very unfortunate if people who are successful in business were put off or discouraged from joining a Government and working in the public interest. I do not intend to have people so discouraged.

Mr. Donald Anderson: One of the many election promises that have been delivered by the Government is to have a referendum which has paved the way for a national assembly for Wales. In conformity with the spirit of Christmas and in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister bring tidings of comfort and joy to the people of Swansea by selecting Swansea guildhall as the site for the new Welsh Assembly, which is cost effective, which is an all-Wales solution, and which will be received enthusiastically by the people of Swansea and south-west Wales?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to promise my hon. Friend a bleak midwinter, but, quite honestly, I have to say that there is a decision to be taken, a review is under way as to the best site for the assembly and it is probably sensible that I wait for the outcome of that review.

Mr. Ashdown: In any end-of-year report on the Government, "Made good progress in some areas that they promised they would", could be a fair judgment; but, "Must do better next year", would be the right judgment in other areas. In which areas does the Prime Minister think that the Government can and must do better next year?

The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have put through a Bill to cut class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds, which we promised to do; we have put in place the £1.3 billion schools building programme, which we promised to do; we have provided extra money for the national health service over and above what we promised to do; we have initiated a £3.5 billion welfare-to-work programme; we have put through a Bill for the removal of handguns; we have signed the land mines treaty; we have held referendums in Scotland and Wales; we have provided £50 for the poorest pensioners; we have reduced VAT on fuel; and just today we have announced better treatment for cervical cancer screening and help for the homeless. There is lots of good news.
Can we do more next year? Yes, of course we can, especially on waiting lists and class sizes. We will do more. We were not elected for just seven months; we were


elected for longer than that. We will do more and we can achieve more. As for the right hon. Gentleman's end-of-year report—[Interruption.] Well, it is Christmas.

Mr. Ashdown: Indeed, and I do not want to break the spirit of Christmas. I fully understand the mess that the Prime Minister was left by the previous Government. I also fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot do everything at once. However, I remind him of his early pledges to cut waiting lists—they are now at record levels and rising; to reduce class sizes—they are now at a seven-year high and rising; and to increase the number of police on the beat—now 300 fewer than when the right hon. Gentleman was elected.
If, by the time of the next Budget, there are still no improvements in delivering those early pledges, will the Prime Minister at least consider that what may be wrong is not so much his policies, as his decision to enact the spending cuts of the Government whom Labour replaced?

The Prime Minister: I accept, of course, that there is more to do on waiting lists and class sizes. That is precisely what I said earlier and it is why extra money is going to those areas next year. We will put in the extra investment, and along with that will come the reform programme to improve both the health service and schools. However, that will be done against the background of a need to keep a tight rein on public resources. That is right, sensible and prudent. It is best for the long-term future of the country.
Since the election, we have taken difficult decisions on interest rates and public finances, but they are right for the long term. However difficult they may be in the short term, it is right that we put in place the stability that will guarantee investment and security for our people long term. That is what we were elected to do.

Mr. Bill Michie: May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for their far-sighted and historic decision to site the National Sports Institute in Sheffield? I am sure that it will be a tremendous boost to athletes throughout the United Kingdom and will be a great success.
On a different but just as important a point, will my right hon. Friend give the necessary support to the British Aerospace Airbus 340–500/600 programmes, to ensure that United Kingdom industry is working on a level playing field with our European partners?

The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's first point, of course we are delighted that the Sheffield bid was successful. Our aim is to increase the excellence in British sport. In fact, there were superb bids all round from many parts of the country, but obviously the institute can be sited in only one of them.
On my hon. Friend's point about launch aid and British Aerospace, we strongly support the Airbus project; we always have. Obviously, the launch aid application has to be judged on the same criteria as everything else. It is under active consideration and as soon as we have the results we will publish them.

Mr. Salmond: Can the Prime Minister explain to my constituents why four Peterhead families were left, in their bereavement, to raise the funds required to raise the

fishing boat Sapphire, return it to Peterhead and allow their loved ones to have family funerals? Does the Prime Minister detect no sense of public obligation or duty in such matters? If he does, can he explain why no Minister, Government Department or agency lifted a finger to help those families in that extreme position?

The Prime Minister: First, I should say that there were Ministers and officials who were in close touch with people throughout the course of this matter. A decision had to be taken. They considered very carefully the report that was commissioned, but they came to the view that the best decision was to leave the situation as it was. I understand the distress that that caused many of the families and it was a difficult decision, but we took it genuinely believing that it was in the best interests of everyone.

Mr. Eric Clarke: May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on their interim policies on the coal industry, but does he agree that this country needs a national integrated energy and fuel policy because, if we leave it to the laissez-faire market, we will rue the day—we will lose the independence that we have in this country?

The Prime Minister: I say to my hon. Friend, who has long experience in the mining industry, that it is important that we address our energy needs on a long-term basis. Obviously, I am pleased that the generators and RJB Mining have come to an agreement for the short term. That has been done, incidentally, without any Government subsidy being paid at all—it is important to emphasise that. However, we need to use this period to conduct a proper review of what the long-term energy needs of the country are. All I would say is that the review has to be based on long-term energy needs, but that must not become an excuse for not having a highly competitive industry at the same time. Putting those two things together will be the purpose of the review that we are conducting.

Mr. Green: The Prime Minister has already made it clear this afternoon that he sympathises with the Paymaster General's plaintive question, "What have I done wrong?" Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that a Minister who one weekend issues a statement through his solicitors saying that he has no influence over a trust, and within seven days admits that, on two separate occasions, he directly influenced the actions of that trust, is not fit to command public confidence? Why is the Prime Minister clinging to that Minister, who is doing nothing but sullying the reputation of his Government?

The Prime Minister: As I said earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, I simply do not agree with that. Indeed, as has been accepted by Conservative Members throughout, there is not even the allegation that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has done something improper. Therefore, the answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition is the same answer that I give to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the British people were asked to choose between spending more money on building the


millennium dome or on providing proper benefits for disabled people and to provide for the windchill factor in severe weather payments, the British people would choose the latter?

The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the windchill payments, the money that has been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the pre-Budget statement is far greater than anything that could possibly be given through taking the windchill factor into account, where the sums of money involved are extremely small. From recollection, we acted on the advisory body's view that that was not the right way in which to help people who face difficulty with their heating bills. Secondly, in respect of the millennium experience, I simply ask him to study carefully today's report from the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which endorses the Government's decision to proceed with the dome and describes it as both
magnificent in conception and likely to be breathtaking in execution".
It was the right decision to proceed with that. The previous Government began the process. We have taken it on. It is right. These things are always difficult, but, in 2000, people will see that the right decision has been taken.

Mr. Flight: Does the Prime Minister regret the lack of consideration given to the proposals for individual savings accounts and the way they were handled? Does he realise the fierce resentment that he has aroused in middle England, not only because the playing field has been changed but because people in middle England who have completed their tax planning will be hit with a £50,000 limit? [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but middle England's fury towards the Government is considerable. Does the Prime Minister realise that it will be impossible to regulate individual savings accounts because they fall into three different areas and, as all regulators will tell him, there cannot be three different financial products in one? Does the Prime Minister further realise that ISAs offer nothing to the lower income groups that was not available through personal equity plans and tax-efficient special savings accounts? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hurry up."] Will the Government reconsider their proposals and the Minister responsible for them?

The Prime Minister: First, the proposals amount to £50,000 worth of tax-free saving for an individual, and £100,000 for a couple. These are quite significant sums of money. First, just to correct the hon. Gentleman on two points, that is the amount of money that people can pay into the fund; it is not necessarily the value of the fund, which can rise to far more than that. Secondly, the proposals are not retrospective, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
As for the lower income groups, it is estimated that around 6 million more people could get the chance to save. The hon. Gentleman talked as though ISAs were a bad deal for TESSA holders. There are 4.5 million TESSA holders, but the limit on TESSAs is £9,000 and the money has to be tied up for a considerable period. Under our proposals, the sum can rise to £50,000 and the

money can be withdrawn at will. There is also an ability to put cash in, too. I suggest that that is rather a good deal for low-income savers.

Mr. McAllion: On the eve of the publication of the Scotland Bill, I warmly welcome the imminent return of Scotland's Parliament and, with it, political decision making, to Scotland. In that devolutionary spirit, will my right hon. Friend confirm that control over the £450 million tax-raising power will be vested in the Scottish Parliament, and in the Scottish Parliament alone? Will he also confirm that, despite a certain rival claim to sovereignty, we on this side of the House, as good democrats and even better socialists, acknowledge that ultimately sovereignty can rest in only one place—with the people?

The Prime Minister: Of course sovereignty does rest with the people, which is why we gave them the chance to vote in a referendum in Scotland, which personally I always thought was a good idea. As for the Bill that is to be published tomorrow, it will set out the correct position in relation to the tax-varying powers and everything else. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliament will come about and that, as a result, we will get a better, more decentralised constitution fit for the 21st century.

Mr. Gibb: In a written answer, the Chancellor referred to statements issued by the Paymaster General. To one such statement, the Paymaster General attached a copy of his solicitor's letter to The Observer. It stated that the trustees of the Orion trust were not influenced by the Paymaster General. Given that it is now abundantly clear that the Paymaster General does influence the trustees of the Orion trust, has not the Chancellor unintentionally misled the House, and does the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor is duty bound to come to the House to put the record straight?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree on any count. As I pointed out earlier, it is simply incorrect to say that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General sought to avoid UK tax. He has not, so the basis of the allegation that is being made is completely and totally wrong. It has been wrong from the beginning and remains wrong now.

Kali Mountford: My right hon. Friend will not be aware that my doctor has told me that many parts of my constituency are practically under quarantine because of a dreadful flu virus that often causes problems in terms of NHS beds. Is not the best Christmas present that the NHS could have had the injection of money that it has received, so that this winter we will not have the crisis that we experienced every year under the previous Government?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out what those extra resources—an extra £300 million over and above what was promised by the previous Government—will do for the national health service. Yesterday, in a hospital, I saw for myself how £270,000 is being used to bridge the gap between social services and hospital treatment of the elderly, which will relieve some of the pressure on beds. Precisely that type of measure can be introduced because of the extra money. If a problem remains in the national health service, we will—over time, and in the manner that we have set


out—get it cured. We will be reversing the appalling destructive legacy that we were left by the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Whittingdale: The Prime Minister has still not answered the question. Is he aware that the statement in the letter of the Paymaster General's lawyers that he has no influence in any way over the decisions of the Orion trust has now been clearly shown to be untrue? Does he therefore accept that the Paymaster General's credibility is destroyed, and that he should now resign?

The Prime Minister: No, as I have already said, I do not accept that. The question may be the Tory briefing of the day, but I have already set out the position absolutely clearly. My hon. Friend has followed the advice that he was given by the Treasury and is in the ministerial code. He has not avoided United Kingdom tax. That is the position.

Mr. Cranston: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their agenda on constitutional change, and particularly on the White Paper on freedom of information? Does he agree that, in five years' time, the British people will say, "Yes, this is another matter on which a Labour Government have made a difference—in this case, in favour of openness and accountability"?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—[Interruption.] It is remarkable that, whenever someone mentions the health service or raises other issues that concern the people of this country, Opposition Members have absolutely nothing to say. My hon. Friend is quite right on his point about freedom of information.

Mr. Prior: May I ask the Prime Minister, for the third time, to answer the question? On 8 December, the Paymaster General issued a statement—which was confirmed, on 12 December, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that he did not in any way influence the trustees of the Orion trust. Over the weekend, the Paymaster General reversed that statement. Should the Paymaster General not now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he might come to the House to clarify the position?

The Prime Minister: The answer is no.

Mrs. Ellman: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Economic and Social Research Council is recommending a change in the categorisation of British society, to include, for the very first time, "the underclass" as an official category? Does he think that that is not only a very suitable epitaph for 18 years of Tory rule, but a measure of the enormity of the task facing the new Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: That is correct, of course—[Interruption.] Opposition Members shout boring, but I do not think that it is boring to try to tackle some of the social problems that we have in this country. The essence of what we are doing is providing—next year, through our £3.5 billion programme—real opportunity for our young people and the long-term unemployed, but demanding responsibility in return. As has been shown again today,

in an initiative on those who are sleeping rough in the streets of London, it is possible to take action if the political will is there to do it. It was not there under the previous Government—that was to their shame—but it is with this Government.

Mr. Walter: Perhaps I can provide a little relief to the Prime Minister and not ask him about the opinions of the permanent secretary or legal advice to the Paymaster General. I ask instead for his view on whether it is not both incompatible and hypocritical for a Minister to propose a tax shelter for ordinary citizens that is limited to £50,000 while simultaneously having for himself a tax shelter of £12 million?

The Prime Minister: No, for the very reason that I have just given, which is that my hon. Friend has not avoided United Kingdom tax, has followed the ministerial code completely and has acted in accordance with the advice that he was given.

Mr. George Turner: The whole House will recall that, as a matter of policy, the Conservative party in government underplayed consistently the dangers of BSE. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition in continuing that policy? Does he agree that Government lotteries should be confined to the newsagent and not extended to the butcher's shop?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are dealing with the £4 billion legacy of the chaos and incompetence that the previous Government engendered. The last people from whom we will take lessons on how to deal with the crisis are members of the party that created it.

Mr. Loughton: I really do want to help the Prime Minister. Let us pretend for a moment that the Paymaster General is a model taxpayer. Let us cast aside all the questions about trustees and the Channel Islands. Does he agree that it would be better if the Paymaster General, any Labour Member or any member of the British public simply held their assets and their money in this country—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Loughton: Would it not be better if the Paymaster General—if he has nothing to hide—held all his assets in this country, fully subject to the rigours of the Inland Revenue?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to help, and I think that he did. This little exhibition at Question Time demonstrates the cheek of that lot there. We remember their record throughout the past few years. As we are talking about foreign money, perhaps we could find out how much foreign money they got in funds for their political party. For them to shield themselves in the robes of financial probity is a joke. It is seen and regarded as a joke. They have no credibility whatever.

BILL PRESENTED

SCOTLAND

Mr. Secretary Dewar, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Secretary Robertson, Secretary Harriet Harman, Mr. Secretary Davies and Mr. Henry McLeish presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and Administration and other changes in the government of Scotland; to provide for changes in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies; to provide for the variation of the basic rate of income tax in relation to income of Scottish taxpayers in accordance with a resolution of the Scottish Parliament; to amend the law about parliamentary constituencies in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 104].

Points of Order

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to Prime Minister's questions. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked a lengthy question about personal equity plans and individual savings accounts. However, the Register of Members' Interests declares that he is deputy chairman of Guinness Flight Hambro Asset Management Ltd. It lists associate companies such as Guinness Flight Global Strategy Fund Ltd., among others. He has clearly been involved in advocacy on behalf of those bodies, because PEPs and ISAs are in direct opposition to their interests.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Member and the House are aware, no Member has to declare an interest during Question Time. If he has some point to make—it seems that he has—he should approach the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about the matters.

Mr. James Paice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the past two days, many hundreds, if not many thousands, of fanners from all over the United Kingdom have been making representations in the House of Commons about the severe distress they face. In the light of the fact that the European Council of Agriculture Ministers has met in the past two days, have you had any request from the Minister of Agriculture, or anybody else in the Ministry of Agriculture, for a statement to explain what they are going to do to help farmers to get out of their severe problems?

Madam Speaker: I believe that the House can expect a statement from the Minister of Agriculture before we rise for the Christmas recess.

Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Hon. Members may not be obliged to declare interests at Question Time, but I believe that they are obliged to do so before they speak in a debate. Last night, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), to whom I have given notice of my point of order, made a winding-up speech on the National Minimum Wage Bill, but failed to declare that he is a director in the remunerated employment of Tamaris plc and has shares in Quality Care Homes, both of which are companies that pay £3 or a little less an hour. Although asked to do so, he made no reference to that interest.
Under the resolution of the House of 6 November 1995, advocacy and failure to declare an interest in a person or body from which an hon. Member may benefit is against the rules of the House. I must ask you, Madam Speaker, to investigate this matter. Despite an invitation last night to declare an interest, there was a flagrant, arrogant refusal to accept. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks has a direct financial interest in rejecting the minimum wage Bill, and keeping wages as low as possible.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I remind the House that all hon. Members who have a financial interest or any interest at all in the subject under debate are required when speaking in the House to declare


that interest—and at the very beginning of their speech, not at any part of the way through. You may care, Mr. Macshane, to report the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I do not want to prolong points of order, which seem to be spurred on once we get to this point on a Wednesday. I call Mr. Winnick.

Mr. David Winnick: You said, Madam Speaker, as we know, that it is not necessary to declare an interest during Question Time. Does not that undermine declaration of interest during debate? After all, Question Time is a very important feature of the House. If an hon. Member has a declared interest, surely he or she may get out of declaring it by raising the matter during Question Time.
The hon. Member named by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has a duty to explain the matter in the House. Otherwise, it could be said that he has concealed a very important interest. If he is an honourable Member, as I am sure he is, he will want to justify, or try to justify, what he has done.

Madam Speaker: The House has never required any Member to declare an interest during Question Time. I can well imagine—as I am sure the House can—that, if Members had to declare interests at Prime Minister's Question Time and other Question Times, we would not get past Questions 3 or 4. I know that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is making a very serious point—[Interruption.] Please let me finish.

The hon. Member may wish to pursue the point. If he does, perhaps he will put it to the Procedure Committee, which would consider it.

Mr. Barnes: On another point of order, Madam Speaker. The point that I am attempting to make may have been missed. The problem is not about an hon. Member needing to declare an interest when asking a question. It is a question of advocacy. Interests are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. The matter is for you, because you may stop an hon. Member proceeding if advocacy is being engaged in.

Madam Speaker: I do not enforce the regulation. It is for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to carry out such duties and for any hon. Member—in this case Mr. Barnes—to inform the Commissioner of the information he has. It is not for the Chair.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a totally different point of order, Madam Speaker. Incidentally, if I had to declare an interest every time, I would never get to the question.
When I first entered the House, before you were Speaker, your predecessor used to refer to tedious and repetitive speeches, as you have yourself. It has always been a rule of the House that hon. Members should not indulge in such speeches. Should not the question writers for the Opposition take time over Christmas to practise some variations on a theme, like Paganini, and return with a new theme of questions for next year?

Madam Speaker: That might be a helpful suggestion for some of the tedious and repetitive questions that I see on the Order Paper from hon. Members on the Government side as well. I read the Order Paper thoroughly every day.

Energy Efficiency (Information)

Ms Julia Drown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the gathering and provision of information on the energy efficiency of homes.
The Bill seeks to amend the 1994 building regulations to improve consumer information and save the environment. It is about thinking globally and acting locally. The objective is to give consumers good information so that they can buy or rent more energy-efficient homes, which would reduce fuel bills and emissions of gases, including carbon dioxide. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who led the British delegation last week in Kyoto, said:
Unless we act now"—
on the greenhouse gases that cause global warming—
we shall be condemning our children to a world of drought and crop failures, rising seas, mass migration and spreading disease."—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 129.]
The Bill would make a contribution to that important work.
The practice of energy-rating houses, especially new houses, began some years ago. The intention was to show how energy-efficient a house was, so that a potential purchaser or tenant could judge one property against another on its energy use, and therefore fuel bills. Houses were given a rating for energy efficiency, but there were several unofficial rating systems, which were run by various energy consultants.
In 1992, the Environment Select Committee, in its fourth report, recommended that the Government sought to establish one national home energy rating scheme and actively promote it in the market. The Government have devised the standard assessment procedure, or SAP rating, which rated houses from 1, or highly energy-inefficient, to 100, or highly energy-efficient. To advance the cause of energy efficiency, the idea was incorporated into the 1994 building regulations, under which builders were required to produce an SAP rating for all new houses and for conversions which constituted a material change of use under planning law. The intention was to ensure one standard rating and to make it available so that purchasers had information on the energy efficiency of a house before buying or renting.
However, the scheme has not worked properly. If we can get it to work properly, energy rating could make an important contribution to getting everyone to think about energy conservation and efficiency. It is a win-win policy. The impact of energy conservation on fuel poverty and the environment could be substantial.
The Energy Saving Trust has calculated that energy conservation measures could save nearly 20 per cent. of domestic energy consumption in the UK by 2010. For some households, that would mean savings of up to £250 every year on their fuel bills, and it would save the UK as a whole some £6 billion. Such measures would also cut the domestic sector's carbon dioxide emissions by 14 per cent. However, to achieve those figures, every opportunity to improve energy efficiency must be taken.
The Bill would strengthen the building regulations to encourage energy efficiency, and would address the two shortcomings in the 1994 regulations. First, the requirement for quality control was not strict enough; secondly, there was no requirement to inform prospective purchasers or tenants of a house's SAP rating.
The effect of the first shortcoming has been expertly summed up by Professor Jake Chapman:
The current situation is that many insulation manufacturers, boiler makers, heating designers and architects offer free SAP ratings to builders based on free and unchecked software. There is no quality control over the software or the data entered into the programmes. Most people using the system have not read the Government's published guidance notes that explain the conventions for assessing properties. As a result, building control officers do not have any confidence in the SAP rating being debated and have no reason to pursue the matter further.
The effect of the second shortcoming is that purchasers and tenants are often not told of the SAP rating. Professor Chapman added:
Many builders would be ashamed if the low SAP ratings of their properties were publicised to customers. Currently the average SAP rating for new private houses is about 70. This compares with an average of 85 to 90 for housing association properties. This difference is created at very little additional cost.
The additional costs at the time of building have been estimated at a mere £250 per dwelling, yet the impact on fuel bills can be substantial. Opportunities are being missed.
The additional costs of extra insulation and better boilers or controls are very low when a home is first built. Installing smaller insulation is cost-effective only if it is built in from the start. This is much more important for new houses, as new housing sets the standards of expectation for the rest of the market. If builders promoted their new homes as energy-efficient, it would have a ripple effect throughout the housing market.
My Bill deals with the shortcomings in the 1994 regulations. It will require tougher control of the issuing of SAP ratings, and will require those ratings to be stated in all promotional material relating to the sale or letting of a property. That will enable people to see how energy-efficient their prospective home is, and will be a further force towards greater energy efficiency.
The Bill will cost central and local government nothing, and will contribute to reducing fuel bills. It will help people to live in warmer homes, which, on a cold day like today, will be appreciated by everybody. It will help reduce greenhouse and other gases. This short Bill will follow the excellent work done on the world agenda by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in Kyoto. It is good for purses and good for the planet, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. David Chaytor, Angela Smith, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Tony Colman and Ms Debra Shipley.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY (INFORMATION)

Ms Julia Drown accordingly presented a Bill to improve the gathering and provision of information on the energy efficiency of homes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 105].

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1997.
Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
Supreme Court (Offices) Act 1997.
Scottish Agricultural College Order Confirmation Act 1997.

Fisheries

[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 8371/96 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources; European Community Document No. 7055/97 relating to the total allowable catches for 1997; European Community Document No. 9893/97 relating to the multi-annual guidance programmes for fishing fleets at the end of 1996.]

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1997 relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions under which they may be fished: and supports the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen based on sustainable fisheries management, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.
The House usually has a debate on fisheries late in December, in advance of the setting of the total allowable catch and quotas for the coming year. Although I have participated in such debates for eight years, this is my fist time speaking from the Government Front Bench. Through that participation over the years, I know how important this debate is to hon. Members from fishing communities, and I am pleased that we are maintaining the tradition this year, with the opportunity not only to debate the forthcoming decisions of the Fisheries Council later this week but to review other important aspects of fisheries policy.
It is right, I believe, to open the debate by recalling the exceptional nature of the fishing industry and the demands that it places on those who go to sea. Catching fish to meet the needs of consumers is a hazardous and unpredictable business; and it is a business that, sadly, results all too often in loss of life. Most recently, we have to recall the sad loss of the Margaretha Maria and the Sapphire, and the tragic loss of their crews.
All those who follow these debates regularly will know the difficulties relating to fisheries policy in this country. Our inheritance as a new Government has not been an easy one. Little progress had been made on meeting multi-annual guidance programme IV targets, and we were faced with the debacle of quota hoppers and the totally unrealistic expectations raised by policies designed not to deal with real problems of over-capacity and sustainability but to pander to the prejudices of Euro-sceptics in the Conservative party, no matter what damage that approach did to the long-term interests of the fishing industry. I appreciate the fact that there are honourable exceptions among Conservative Members to that remark.
The Government have been determined to adopt realistic and workable policies in the fisheries sector, and not to duck tough decisions. We made it clear from the start that we would apply the rules of the common fisheries policy properly, and that we would look to the Commission and other member states to do likewise. Our approach to the CFP has not been uncritical, but it has been realistic.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: As my hon. Friend knows, I am an honorary president of


the Clyde Fishermen's Association—I do not get anything for that—and serious concerns have been expressed to us both about the immense pressures on the west coast scallop fishery. It is not a pressure stock. I hope that he will say something to allay the serious but entirely legitimate concerns of the Clyde fishermen.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right: I am well aware of his long involvement in the fishing industry. He has spoken in all the debates that I have attended. I am aware of the matter he raises about the scallop industry. The issue is not covered in the total allowable catches and quotas in the Council, and part of it comes under our inshore regulations, but we are considering it. If my hon. Friend wants to raise the matter with me formally on behalf of his constituents, I will be only too pleased to consider it, and to give him a direct response.

Mr. William Cash: The Minister may remember the condemnation by the Select Committee on European Legislation, on which I serve, of the last round of the Fisheries Council. The Committee said:
There is no doubt that the United Kingdom has done badly out of the decision taken at the Fisheries Council.
Since then, we have had to issue another report, on 10 December, in which there is again severe criticism of the Government for not providing information about what is really going on with the massive cuts that are proposed, which I will not set out. The report said:
We believe it would have been helpful to the House if information of the kind set out in World fish Report had been included".
Can we assume that we will have a proper, candid, open and transparent description of the real position in today's debate? Does the Minister accept that such condemnation from a Select Committee on which the Government have a majority speaks for itself?

Mr. Morley: I accept that there have been problems in getting information and documents to Committees. We have made representations about that delay to the Commission. We will be happy to consider suggestions on how information is presented, and if the Select Committee wants to make recommendations to the Government, we will respond appropriately.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Would it be useful if, when Members of the European Parliament got their papers from the Commission, members of the European Legislation Select Committee, on which I serve, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), could get them at the same time, with the Commission's comments? At present, we get only the Government's comments, and do not know what the Commission says.

Mr. Morley: That would seem a reasonable suggestion, and it may be worth looking at. There have been delays in obtaining information for scrutiny, and that is not acceptable. I want to make that clear to hon. Members.
The previous Administration left the issue of quota hoppers suspended and in a totally unworkable state. Quota hoppers—the foreign ownership of UK-flagged fishing vessels and the consequent rights for foreign interests to use UK quotas—is a problem which has exercised the industry. The previous Administration

claimed that that problem could be resolved by adding a protocol to the treaty. That was a bogus claim. They ignored the fact that not a single member state of the European Union supported the proposal they had made for such a treaty change. Not even the member states that were suffering similar problems and were sympathetic supported a treaty change at the intergovernmental conference.

Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: I shall be happy to give way when I have finished this point.
Having examined the situation and discovered the negotiating realities that we had inherited, we secured instead an understanding with the European Commission in the form of an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission. This gave an authoritative view as to the measures we could apply to secure a firm economic link between the vessels using UK quotas and the interests and communities dependent on fisheries.

Mr. Jack: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Barber judgment, which was a protocol on the Maastricht treaty, was an example in which not all member states agreed with our view, but in which we did get our way—to the benefit of the United Kingdom and pension holders?

Mr. Morley: The fact remains that getting a protocol or an amendment of that kind requires a unanimous decision in this case. The prospect of getting a unanimous decision from countries such as Spain and the Netherlands on issues directly against their interests is not realistic. To get a change in a protocol, there has to be some support. There was no support whatsoever for that change from any other country. It was not a realistic option.

Mr. John Townend: Is it not a fact that that would have been an option if we had been prepared to go to the wire and say, "Unless you agree to this, we will veto the whole treaty"? Amsterdam would have fallen. That would not have been allowed to happen under any circumstances. That is the card that the Government had to play, but they lost their will and did not play it.

Mr. Morley: I am not convinced that that was an option. We have been through all this before over beef. The previous Government had a policy of non-co-operation. They said that if they ran that policy, the beef ban would be lifted. It was a failure. It did enormous damage to our relationship with Europe and it damaged our industries, not least the fishing industry, and went a great deal wider than that. Adopting such a policy in this case would have been equally damaging. Those who are opposed to the concept of the European Union would support such a move, but it was not a realistic option.

Mr. John Hayes: rose—

Mr. Morley: If hon. Members will forgive me, I must make some progress.
Detailed proposals have been put to the fishing industry as to how the economic link in relation to licences can be operated. We have had valuable feedback, which is helpful in developing our ideas. We expect to reach a final view on the measures to be implemented very shortly, taking account of the advice of the European Commission.
It is only fair to say that the views coming from different parts of the industry are diverse, and that the enthusiasm for stringent measures has not been uniformly expressed even by some well-established representatives of the UK fishing industry. Those who think that the proposed conditions on licences would count for little may be surprised at some of the reactions to this proposal. That is something we shall need to take into account in deciding on the measures to be applied.
I turn to the Commission's proposals for the total allowable catches and quotas to apply in 1998. I regret that, as in previous years, they have appeared very late in the day, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). That makes it difficult for us, and for all member states, to prepare for important decisions in the December Council. I have taken the matter up with the Fisheries Commissioner. To allow the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, we made available papers containing as much detail as possible before the Commission's proposals were published. I accept that there is room for improvement, and we will press for that.
The proposals cover some 120 different TACs. There is an increase on previous years, because six new TACs in the North sea—sand eels, monkfish, megrim, turbot, mixed flatfish and skates and rays—are proposed. The adoption of the new TACs is welcome. They will help to conserve stocks and prevent increased fishing efforts from being introduced by countries that have not traditionally fished for them.
I also welcome the fact that, for the first time, a TAC is to be set for sand eels. Hon. Members know of the Government's concern about the impact of industrial fishing. Although we think that the proposed TAC on sand eels is far too high, it presents us with the opportunity to argue for catch limitations on industrial fisheries.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am sure that the House is with the Minister in welcoming the new TACs, but do not the Government expect producer organisations to try to administer them from 1 January? For the first time, some of those are mixed TACs. Some are listed under the Norwegian "other" category. Given that they are dealing with track records that are five or six years out of date, how are producer organisations expected to cope with the administration of the new TACs? Will the Government consider undertaking their administration at least for the first year, to allow the producer organisations to sort things out in an orderly way?

Mr. Morley: I accept the criticism that the new TACs were announced at short notice and that the producer organisations have not had time to consider them. I would have to reflect carefully on the Government administering the TACs. They are much better administered by producer organisations. While I appreciate their problems, I hope

that they will be able to resolve them. If there are difficulties, I am sure that they will make representations to the Ministry in the normal way.

Mr. Jack: Before we leave the difficult subject of administration and availability of information, can the Minister assure us that he will lodge a minute with the Council tomorrow, laying down the requirements in clear terms, so that the problem he described at the start of his speech does not happen again next year?

Mr. Morley: I would be more than pleased if, by lodging a minute, I could ensure that such things did not happen again next year. I am willing to take all appropriate measures to draw this unsatisfactory situation to the attention of the Commission. I will consider the matter.
For the remaining stocks, the Commission proposes increases or the status quo for some, and cuts for others. The year-on-year changes are based on the advice of the fisheries scientists of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. It is particularly important that the scientists are developing a precautionary approach in their advice. Few would argue against a prudent and cautious approach to fish stock management.
We must take seriously the scientists' assessment of the state of stocks. At the same time, it is important that the scientists should draw on the day-to-day practical experience of the fishing industry in making their assessments. An effective dialogue between fisheries scientists and fishermen is vital if the scientific advice is to be valued and accepted by the industry.
A good example of the relationship working well is the responsible approach that the industry has taken to the TAC for North sea cod. That is an important stock, which must be protected. The scientists advise that it would be possible to raise the TAC to 150,000 tonnes in 1998 and still increase the spawning stock biomass to within safe biological limits. However, to speed the rebuilding of the stock, the Government have pressed, with the support of the industry, for the TAC to be limited to 140,000 tonnes.
I am glad to report that that figure has now been agreed in the annual consultations between the Community and Norway over the management of this and other North sea stocks. It is an excellent example of joint industry-Government co-operation in ensuring sustainability.
Naturally, however, fishermen are concerned about some of the cuts proposed by the Commission. I met leaders of the UK industry this morning. We had a full discussion, so that I was able to hear their concerns and priorities. I was able to assure them that, at the Fisheries Council tomorrow, we will seek increases in TACs to reflect their concerns where that is compatible with the conservation of the stocks. But I emphasised that our approach has to be responsible if stocks are to recover from some of the current low levels.
I am pleased that, in addition to developing the dialogue with fisheries scientists on the state of the stocks, the British fishing industry has co-operated closely with fisheries departments and scientists in the lengthy and complicated negotiations on new technical conservation measures. Those measures are designed to conserve stocks by reducing catches of juvenile fish and discards.
In October, after many months of negotiations, we secured a good package that met the key needs of our industry on mesh sizes, and, for the first time, introduced


into Community legislation the square mesh panels that our industry strongly supports as a means of increasing the selectivity of nets. Among a range of other provisions, we secured important new measures in the shellfish sector, which have been particularly warmly welcomed.

Dr. Liam Fox: The Minister has referred to the cod TAC: perhaps he could tell us the logic behind the decision to increase that catch but not that for haddock by anything like the same proportion.

Mr. Morley: The recommendation for increasing the TAC of a species comes from ICES and the fisheries scientists. They reach that decision on the basis of their monitoring and measurement of stocks. It is their view that the cod catch could be increased to a greater extent than that of haddock. We must take that scientific advice into account when making a decision on TACs.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Something of a paradox exists because, although the cod stock is increasing and recovering, it is still outside safe biological limits, whereas the haddock stock is inside that safe limit. It is important to stress that unless working fishermen can understand the reasoning behind some of the scientific advice, it loses credibility, and it becomes all the more difficult to enforce TACs.
Will the Minister assure the House that he will look carefully at the advice given on haddock to see whether something can be done, perhaps through the industrial by-catch element, to allow for an increase in the haddock catch, which the evidence seems to support even if the scientific recommendation does not?

Mr. Morley: The points raised by the hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) were also raised with me this morning in a meeting with representatives of the industry. I undertook to query the total allowable catch with the Commission in the Fisheries Council. We need good science, but there must be co-operation between the industry and scientists. It is right and appropriate that when scientists make a recommendation which, on the face of it, appears contradictory, they need to explain their case for it. We will certainly examine that reasoning and ensure that the information is made available.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not this matter serve as a timely reminder to the Government to bear in mind the fact that, although advisers can give the advice, they must make the tactical decision on whether that advice is correct and appropriate? The Minister has been reminded again this afternoon that it is not practical, as proposed, to catch fish before they have had a chance to breed. Surely to goodness it should therefore be possible for the politicians to move in to stop that, instead of simply sheltering behind the advice given them by scientists.

Mr. Morley: On occasions, a political decision must be taken in relation to TACs and quotas, but one must have a basis for doing so. One cannot take such political decisions just because one would like to have more fish. If such an attitude is taken, the stocks will be run down and there will be no fish. There must be a baseline and some kind of reference point, and that must come from scientists.
It is true that fisheries science, by its very nature, is imprecise; nevertheless we must take into account the advice offered, and use it as a starting point from which to work. That is important.

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make some progress.
MAGP IV—multi-annual guidance programme IV—is a major issue which has preoccupied both the Government and the fishing industry for two years. It has been a sword of Damocles over the industry because of the uncertainty about the size of the cuts that the industry faced in view of the need for effort control.
I must repeat that the situation the Government inherited was far from satisfactory. The previous Administration adopted a negotiating technique that greatly reduced their potential influence on the final outcome, in that it became clear that they would not vote in favour of any likely conclusion. Since May, we have been seeking to recover the ground in the negotiations to prepare a detailed United Kingdom plan to implement the April decisions on MAGP IV. I can now say that we have succeeded in making considerable progress, and in mitigating the scale of the cuts that the industry feared.
First, we had to put right various technical flaws concerning MAGP I am pleased to report that we succeeded in getting agreement on the long overdue technical changes in the proposals for the Commission's final MAGP IV decisions. As a result, our overall shortfall on tonnage for MAGP III will reduce to less then 3 per cent., and we shall have met our total power target under that scheme.
The 1997 decommissioning scheme, the results of which I announced on 3 December, will help to narrow the gap further, but there remain significant shortfalls in both the pelagic and beam trawl segments. The profitability of those segments has effectively precluded any real interest in decommissioning until now.
For MAGP IV, we, like all other member states, are still awaiting the formal adoption by the Commission of our definitive targets. Regrettably, that has been delayed. It should have taken place before 30 November. On the assumption that the proposals considered by the management committee at the end of October are confirmed, we shall have secured a treatment of the main demersal and nephrops fisheries that should make it possible to avoid the need to restrict time at sea, provided that present effort levels do not increase, and that other measures directed at the conservation of fish stocks are fully respected.
We shall also have secured recognition of certain new fishing opportunities for the pelagic fleet, which should help to offset continued growth in that segment. In addition, there will be separate targets for the beam trawl fleet as between the North sea fishery and those in the south-west, which will enable the implementing measures to be applied appropriately to the different parts of that fleet. That will be an important and helpful outcome for our fishing industry, because it means that we can avoid the need for fishing effort controls on the great majority of fishing vessels.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not increasingly clear that the whole machinery of European


Commission control of catches and the husbandry effort that it has made, which often bears no comparison with the successful efforts unilaterally conducted by Iceland and Norway, means that—certainly following the enlargement of the EU now in prospect, including the accession of Estonia and Poland with their significant fishing fleets—if we are to maintain the crazy notion of a "common resource", much of which is our territorial water, stocks will continue to decline, there will be further decommissioning, and more British fishermen will be put out of work?

Mr. Morley: I have said several times that, in my view, the term "common resource" is out of date, as fish stocks are now protected by the idea of relative stability, which means that our share of the fish quota is protected within the common fisheries policy.
It is true that countries outside Europe have had successful fisheries regimes, but that has not always been the case—certainly not for Norway, whose industrial fishery collapsed, or for Canada, where the cod fishery has collapsed. There is no guarantee that going it alone necessarily brings an improvement in fisheries policy. What is clear is that, even if we could go it alone, we would still have to have a pan-European fisheries management policy.

Mr. Godman: May I make a plea on behalf of the nephrops fishermen? Can they be allowed to remain in their separate segment, as in MAGP III? That is an important issue for nephrops fishermen.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right: that is an important issue for that sector. However, many of the vessels move in and out of the white fish sector, and there is logic in having nephrops and the demersal fleet in the same sector. We shall, of course, consider any representations that we receive.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister is making an interesting statement. Could he elaborate on what he has said about the pelagic sector, because the expectation under MAGP IV was for a sizeable cut in that sector at a time when the TACs were debating a 60 per cent. increase in North sea herring and a 20 per cent. increase in North sea mackerel? It would be ironic if, despite having far more fishing opportunities, the time that pelagic vessels were allowed to be at sea was cut. Does the Minister think that MAGP IV is a good mechanism for restructuring the pelagic fleet, and does the review clause at the end of 1999 enable us to defer decisions on the pelagic fleet?

Mr. Morley: I confirm that the review clause in 1999 will allow us to examine the progress of the whole MAGP. The majority of the fleet has now met its MAGP target in total. Effort restrictions will apply to only about 250 vessels, including the pelagic fleet. There has been substantial expansion of and investment in the pelagic fleet in recent years. Although increases have been recommended for mackerel and for North sea herring, some of the pelagic stocks to the west of Scotland are in a pretty poor state.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made a good point.

The central question is whether capacity reduction is appropriate for pelagic stocks, the availability of which is subject to wild swings. Once capacity has been reduced, there is no access to bring it back. The Minister would be well advised to consider how the Dutch manage effort limitation on the pelagic side. They do it in such a way as to meet MAGP requirements without seriously inconveniencing the fleet. Would that not be a better method than the blunt instrument of capacity reduction? Perhaps a more sophisticated method is necessary, so as not to fling away the fishing opportunities to which the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland referred.

Mr. Morley: It may be useful if I finish what I was saying about MAGP IV, because I shall touch on some of the points that the hon. Gentlemen have raised. We are keen to implement effort limitations in co-operation with the industries concerned, and to give them the option of managing those effort limitations themselves. If they have workable schemes, such as the Dutch scheme, that is fine by us.
I appreciate that effort limitation is a burden on the pelagic sector, as it has not been decommissioning. However, one of the advantages of effort limitation is that, if stocks improve and if the science shows that there is increased availability and opportunities for fishing, the fleet could be allowed to expand. That is a more flexible way of dealing with the problem than decommissioning.
Effort is most in excess of our targets in the pelagic and beam trawl segments. We understand why they have not responded to the decommissioning schemes, but the only practical alternative for the Government is to introduce effort controls for those segments. That will come as no surprise to those sectors.
Given the relatively small number of vessels involved—about 250—the Government's preference is for groups of vessels to co-operate in managing their effort collectively, along the lines of the current management of quotas by producer organisations. That covers the points that the hon. Gentlemen raised. Effort allocations would be set annually by group and by fishery, and would be aimed at reducing effort to the final MAGP IV targets over the next four years. The average effort reduction is likely to be 30 per cent. for the pelagic sector and 15 per cent. for beam trawlers, with higher figures of about 36 and 19 per cent. respectively for the North sea.
Detailed discussions with the fishermen concerned will begin as soon as practicable, but the monitoring of effort and its recording against the new targets will have to begin from 1 January 1998. If agreement on the sort of devolved flexible arrangements that the Government are suggesting cannot be reached, a centralised system will have to be imposed to ensure that the relevant annual limits are not breached. That will include, if necessary, the closure of fisheries when effort allocations are exhausted. Inevitably, a centrally imposed system will be less flexible and sensitive to market needs, so I hope that the industry will respond constructively to the Government's proposal for self-management.

Mr. Jack: I seek clarification. The Minister seems to want to sub-contract his effort control to the industry. Can he confirm that that would be a burden on the industry? Does he have proposals for financial assistance for the


industry for managing effort control? Has he ruled out further moneys for decommissioning in the sectors that he has mentioned?

Mr. Morley: I shall shortly deal with those matters. For the reasons that I have given, it is surely more desirable to put the management of effort control in the hands of the industry so that it can take choices that fit working patterns while enabling it to reach the targets. I think that the industry will welcome that. The right hon. Gentleman asks about financial support. We are operating on the budget that was left to us by the previous Government, and they made no such provision. We have to work within those financial limits.
For the newly combined demersal/nephrops segment, which is roughly half the UK fleet or some 1,500 vessels over 10 m, we do not plan any restriction on time at sea in 1998. In deciding on that approach, we have taken account of the effort targets that are being defined, the impact of the current decommissioning and the effect of strengthened enforcement. Fishing effort remains a matter of concern in fisheries where scientific advice is for reductions in fish mortality. For that reason, fishing effort will be very carefully monitored, and we shall strengthen enforcement to help to ensure that quotas and other conservation measures are properly respected.
The position will be kept under review in 1998 and beyond, so that action can be taken if fishing effort does not respond as envisaged. If effort limits prove necessary, the reference period for any management measures would be based on effort prior to 1998. We are making that clear now, so that fishermen know that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to build up a record of increased fishing activity. The approach to the remaining segments of the fleet—lines and nets, shellfish, fixed and mobile—will be on the same lines, although for distant water vessels the application of article 8 of the April Council decision needs to be further clarified with the Commission in the light of the continuing consultations with industry on the proposals that we sent to it in September. That will be taken forward as soon as practicable.
There is one other general change in relation to MAGP IV compared with MAGP III, which I should like to signal now—the handling of segmentation. Under the previous arrangements, a vessel's allocation to a specific fleet segment was purely for statistical purposes. Under MAGP IV, there are differential effort targets for different parts of the fleet. As a result, we must have arrangements that determine in advance the segment and targets to which a particular vessel is subject for the coming year. Full details are set out in reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), which I am answering today. In brief, the arrangements will mean that, initially, a vessel will be subject to the effort regime of the segment in which it fished in 1996. As no effort constraints are planned for the great bulk of the fleet, the impact of this new requirement is likely to be very narrow.
We are taking this opportunity to make some changes to our licensing arrangements. Again, these will primarily affect the pelagic sector and will extend the ring fence around the pelagic fleet to prevent further growth in its capacity.
We shall also be setting down a timetable for linking the licensing of all fishing vessels to the declaration of maximum continuous engine power, as well as reviewing

the operation of the licensing system to see whether and how that might be improved. We should like to involve the fishing industry in the review, and I am proposing that officials should hold a series of meetings with representatives of the principal fishermen's organisations during 1998. There are acknowledged difficulties in the reliable recording of engine power and it is important that we address those if MAGP IV is to operate fairly and reliably. For that reason, I hope that the licensing review—again, with representatives of the industry—will look at the arrangements that will need to be made for the licensing of maximum continuous engine power.
My final remarks on MAGP IV relate to future decommissioning, to which the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred. The initial implementing arrangements which I have described are expected to be sufficient for immediate purposes to ensure satisfactory progress towards our targets. As the bulk of the UK fleet has now met its targets, there is no requirement for decommissioning for the vast majority of the UK fleet. The previous Administration made no financial provision for decommissioning beyond this year; nor did they provide for grants towards satellite monitoring.
Before reaching any view on whether we should operate decommissioning or other new measures in future, we need to complete the comprehensive spending review that is currently taking place. In respect of fisheries, the review is looking at all aspects of expenditure, whether on administration and enforcement, or on the various grants that are currently paid. It will examine the future need for such expenditure and the ways in which it could be funded in the future, including the possibility of the industry itself making a contribution. Thus, the range and scale of all expenditure will be looked at, and the scale and financing of—and, of course, the need for—any decommissioning will be decided when that review is concluded.

Mr. Gill: Before concluding his remarks, will the Minister make it quite clear to the House what he understands relative stability to mean in relation to the British fishing fleet? Is he saying that, regardless of how many new members join the European Union and assuming that fish stocks remain static, the amount of fish that the British fishing fleet will be permitted to catch will remain constant in terms of tonnage?

Mr. Morley: No. It is the share that will remain constant and not necessarily the tonnage, because stocks and quotas vary from year to year. I can confirm that the principle of relative stability means that any new members that join an enlarged European Union will not have the right to fish on quota in our waters, or in Community waters, unless they have a track record of having done so.
The House will appreciate that this is a difficult package, especially for some parts of the fishing industry; but it represents a very considerable improvement on what they might have expected some months ago. In particular, we are able to limit the introduction of effort controls to no more than about 250 vessels, and there is no current expectation of effort controls being required for the rest of the fleet in order to meet the targets of MAGP IV. We are offering the industry the opportunity to share in the task of managing effort and managing quota more effectively and thus take a greater responsibility for the successful management of fisheries. I hope that the


industry will work with us to make the controls that are needed as flexible as possible, as it is in its own best interests to do.
I referred earlier to the need for conservation measures to be fully respected. Since taking office on 1 May, I and my colleagues have repeatedly emphasised that the long-term future of the industry depends on the effective conservation of fish stocks. That includes action to deal with the problems created by black fish. Our commitment to improve standards of enforcement was spelt out at the high-level talks my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture had with the leaders of the fishing industry in July. As promised then, we shall be consulting industry in the new year about plans to introduce a system of designated ports for white fish landings made by our larger vessels. That, coupled with the phased introduction of satellite monitoring, will enable us to make much better use of the resources we devote to enforcement.
At the same time, we have been actively reviewing with the European Commission the steps that might be taken to raise enforcement standards across the Community, following up the undertaking the Commission President gave to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Amsterdam in June. We can expect to see the Commission's ideas in the new year, and we have made it clear that we will give priority to examining them during our presidency.
There will continue to be a great deal to do during 1998 to secure the future of the fishing industry. I have already referred to the implementation of MAGP IV, the need to look at the financing of the fisheries sector in the context of the comprehensive spending review, and our determination to develop improved enforcement measures in the UK and across the Community.
In January 1998, Britain takes up the presidency of the European Union. For fisheries, that means that my right hon. Friend will chair the two meetings of the Council which are planned, and we see good prospects of using this opportunity not just to manage the business efficiently, but to focus on some important issues—including not only enforcement, as I have mentioned, but the environmental dimensions of the CFP and policy development, including the more effective involvement of local fishermen in the management processes.
We have agreed with the European Commission that it will be promoting with us a debate on how to improve EU-wide enforcement of the common fisheries policy, and I am optimistic that we shall be able to adopt new and more effective rules. Environmental issues will be addressed through measures to phase out drift nets used for tuna fishing, and so reduce the dolphin and other by-catches. We also envisage a review of action being taken to implement the Bergen inter-ministerial meeting on sustainable fishing in the North sea.
We need to be sure that everything possible is being done to apply well-based environmental measures where they can help the fisheries sector. We plan a debate on the marketing regime to give guidance to the Commission in preparing proposals; and the Council will also be looking at plans for handling the 2002 review of the CFP and having a report on the closer involvement of fishermen in fisheries management through regional meetings.
The Government intend to continue to keep in close touch with fishermen on all these matters as the presidency progresses.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: Briefly, as I must bring my remarks to a close.

Mr. Wallace: What does the Minister hope to achieve during the presidency to ensure much more equality of enforcement of fisheries measures throughout the Community?

Mr. Morley: That will be one of the priorities during our presidency. I attended the conference of Fisheries Ministers in Vigo, when enforcement was the main topic. I was very encouraged by the undoubted determination of all countries in the European Union to tackle enforcement and such issues as the landing and, indeed, the marketing of undersized fish, of which there is a long tradition in some countries. It is an issue on which we need to make progress, and we believe that there is support for that in both the Commission and the Council.
I have had many contacts with fishermen and fishermen's organisations during my time as a Minister. The leading organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and, in Scotland, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation play a vital part in ensuring that the Government receive a full and balanced presentation of what the catching sector is thinking. I pay a warm tribute to the constructive role they have played. I would also like to take this opportunity to send good wishes to Cecil Finn, the president of the SFF, who is recovering from a triple heart bypass operation.
The NFFO and the SFF were key voices when, last July, we took the initiative of convening a meeting of a broad range of interests in the fishing industry. That high-level meeting went much wider than the catching sector and was, we believe, useful in giving broader direction to the consideration of policy. We envisage having a further high-level meeting early next year to look at the topics arising during our presidency.
The underlying problems of the fisheries sector are substantial, and a great deal remains to be done. It will not be easy for the fishing industry, which will need to accept continuing adjustments and rationalisation if it is to be sustainable and economic in the long term. However, the Government are determined to secure the industry's future and to plan the way forward in close contact with all parts of the industry, and taking full account of the interests of consumers and the environmental implications of fisheries policy.
For the first time in many years, we are making progress on a number of fronts relating to outstanding issues. The MAGP IV agreement gives the industry some stability, and it will come as a relief for most of the fleet. It is our priority to achieve a sustainable fishing industry and to give fishermen a real stake in managing it. While much remains to be done, the days of gesture politics to appease an anti-European rump are over.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: What a shame.

Mr. Morley: Our priority is a prosperous, stable and sustainable fishing industry recognising the rich regional


diversity of our coastal communities and the crucial importance to certain regions of this national industry. The measures I have announced today are an important beginning in meeting those objectives.
I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Michael Jack: I beg to move, To leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'notes the contents of the unnumbered explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1997 outlining the basis of the negotiations for the December Fisheries Council; and supports efforts to secure the best possible sustainable fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom industry, but recognises that, whatever the Council's outcome, the Government have yet again failed Britain's fishermen through their inability to provide an EU Treaty-based solution to the question of quota hopping, any form of workable plan to enable the industry to respond to the demands of MAGP IV and a statement reflecting the Government's priorities in the forthcoming discussions on CFP reform.'.
I was intrigued by the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). His voice was a timely contribution to the debate because it showed that Labour Members are not going to allow the Minister to have his own way.
Before I get into the meat of the debate, on behalf of the Opposition, I repeat the Minister's salute to the industry. We associate ourselves with his remarks about the sad losses in the industry since the debate 12 months ago. Any hon. Member who read the newspaper reports of the raising of the vessel Sapphire, and the reports of the continuing anguish of the families, will understand only too clearly what a dangerous occupation fishing is. Those of us who enjoy our fish, whether in the form of traditional fish and chips or of more sophisticated dishes, have much for which to thank the fishing industry, which ensures a regular supply of excellent quality fish.
I join the Minister in sending my best wishes to Cecil Finn. He has been a doughty advocate of the industry north of the border, and we wish him well.
The Minister tried to give the impression that all was sweetness and light between the industry and the Labour party, but I took some comfort from a west country newspaper article that followed his first meeting as Minister. In the Western Morning News of 13 May, Jim Portus, chief executive of the South-West Fish Producers Organisation, said:
I have never been so depressed after meeting with a Fisheries Minister. The whole atmosphere was clouded by his apparent determination that, having been given a legal obligation to reduce the fishing fleet, that is what we are going to do because we are all good Europeans now.
I felt slightly better having read that. Having been in the fishing industry's firing line, I am still dusting the flour from my coat, or at least my driver's coat, so I know what it is like. I sympathise with the Minister. It is a rough, tough industry to negotiate with, but it is worth standing up for.
I know that the Minister has a genuine interest in the fishing industry because I debated the matter with him when we were in government and he was in opposition, and he showed his expertise and understanding in the way in which he dealt with the interventions. I wish him well in his supporting role to the Minister of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food at the Agriculture Council. No doubt the Minister will read out the speaking notes, ably written by his officials, but the explanation will come from the Parliamentary Secretary.
As the hon. Member said, this is our annual opportunity to review the fishing industry and to hold the Government to account for their stewardship of fishing policy, for which they have been responsible for the past eight months. It is a great pity that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not able to be here, because he will carry much of the burden. I am sure that he will be engaged in bilateral discussions with other fisheries Ministers.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), will be able to tell us in his winding-up speech whether the Minister will present the case on behalf of the United Kingdom industry in the form of a special presentation to the presidency and to the chairman of the Council of Ministers to make certain that our negotiating position is properly understood before the detailed discussions start tomorrow.
I want to review in a little more detail some of the issues involving total allowable catches and quotas that the Minister has mentioned. His party is fond of discussing openness. It is important that, in his winding-up speech, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland comments on how he views some of the genuine issues that the industry has put before him.
It is important that the Minister be held to account for what he achieves in the negotiations in Brussels. I hope that he will desist from the typical way in which a difficult negotiation is usually wrapped up: a press release, which was written before he left his new sumptuous premises in Smith square, is issued, which reads something like, "We had a terrifically tough negotiation." The Minister works out that any extra stock is worth X thousand or million pounds more, adds everything together and says that it is a tremendous result for the British fishing industry because the total value of the catch is going up; but that leaves people thrashing about if their sector has gone down or if it is the one for which the Minister has failed to meet his negotiating remit.
I want more a little more detail from the Minister about how he is to proceed. I am not accusing him of being a dishonest person, but will he assure us that he will be straightforward and honest when he reports the outcome of the Council?
I want to spend a little time examining the Minister's record on quota hopping, to probe him a little more on multi-annual guidance programme IV, to raise briefly the working time directive—a cause of deep concern in the industry, especially north of the border—to ask a question on behalf of the frozen food industry and its difficulties in persuading the Minister to talk to its representatives about supplies of fish from Russian sources, and to mention briefly the difficulties of the Thames fishing industry.

Mr. Morley: I must correct the impression that the right hon. Gentleman may have given. I recently met representatives of the frozen food industry to talk about the problems of Russian supply.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he has had that conversation because when


industry representatives came to see me, they were having great difficulty in getting more than eight vessels registered as approved sources. I appreciate that fish hygiene has to be taken extremely seriously, but the Minister, who has a constituency interest in the frozen food sector, will understand the industry's worries in ensuring a plentiful supply of fish. He will know that the UK is in deficit in its fish supply, and how important those frozen cod blocks are. I am grateful that he has met industry representatives and I shall not press him further on the matter, but I hope that he will make every effort to resolve the niggling and awkward problem that first led the industry to come to see me.
The Minister implied that his party's relationships with Europe were in such good shape that he could look forward to a warm and cosy Council where he will achieve all his objectives. He may have forgotten what happened yesterday. We awoke to find that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had, in the nicest sense, been well and truly rolled over by the Standing Veterinary Committee, which voted 14 to one against the British proposals in connection with specified risk materials and the adaptation of those proposals for beef coming into this country. I do not want to let the debate veer off into a surf and turf discussion, but that is an illustration of the fact that not everything in the European garden is lovely.
I deal first with the use, for the first time in advice from the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management, of the precautionary approach. The Minister will be aware of the implications of that and the way it is being used in the context of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea's advice.
The industry recognises that some severe cuts in stocks have been proposed by the ACFM, but I think that the Minister will agree that it recognises that scientists have not always taken their own advice into account. In fact, it has been left to the Commission, recognising that there is a 40 per cent. floor on total allowable catch reductions, to temper the view of the scientists. However, a reduction of 40 per cent. in stock represents a massive swing in availability. The Minister will recognise that it destabilises vessel viability and rational marketing, and places terrific pressure on quota management.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, especially as this approach can, in its own way, lead to a growth of discards, which is against the conservation objectives that the Minister wants to attain. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
Will the Minister consider forming for the first time a joint council of fishermen and scientists to give him a permanent standing committee to offer advice on the question of stocks? The debate on proper TAC levels and quotas at this time of year is typified both by scientists' up-and-down view, which I have described, and by the view of fishermen, who say, "It's not really like that. We're not seeing that situation out there." The time has come when both sides of the debate need to reach some agreement.
The Minister was right to point out that it is best not to postpone detailed discussion to just before the Council meets. Although his own scientists gave the industry a briefing on the subject a couple of weeks ago, they did so without knowing the Commission's final and full figures.
The time really has come when such a joint committee—perhaps sitting on a permanent basis, throughout the year—would be a much better way of trying to set the British position and of getting both sides to accept appropriate TAC levels and quotas. I shall be grateful if the Minister will consider it.
In sage interventions, hon. Members have pointed out that—to the industry's welcome—the North sea cod TAC has been increased substantially. I was delighted to hear mention of the conservation element of the increase, as a quantity of fish has been banked for the future. Nevertheless, although the cod stock has turned round remarkably in 18 months, one can imagine the industry's incredulity to learn that the very MAGP IV figures that the Minister presented to the House today were being formulated in a period in which that stock was said to be collapsing.
Substantial reductions in effort have been proposed using yesterday's stock information, whereas today's stock information shows substantial increases in the cod fishery. MAGP IV originally proposed that the cod sector of the fleet make a 30 per cent. cut in its fishing effort—demonstrating the real difficulty in people taking decisions with long-term implications for the industry on the basis of short-term and sometimes questionable scientific advice. I ask the Minister to comment on just how satisfied he is with the way in which scientific advice is being handled.
The reverse situation—of the North sea haddock TAC being reduced—must also be explored. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, haddock stock is inside its safe biological levels. As we question the science on quota sizes, so we should question the science dealing with cod and haddock as a mixed fishery. People do not understand how one part of a mixed fishery can increase when it is subject to the same fishing level as another part that has decreased. The Minister owes the House a better explanation for that, and should not simply rely on the good news about cod, so that he can avoid the bad news about haddock.
I should like also to deal with three other North sea stocks: whiting, saithe and hake. The industry faces a reduction in the whiting TAC of almost 20 per cent. Again, however, the stock remains inside its safe biological limit. May I press the Minister to assure the House that, in the Council tomorrow, he will discuss adjusting industrial by-catches to deal with the whiting situation—just as it has been proposed that part of the solution to the haddock situation might be achieved by re-examining industrial by-catches?
May I press the Under-Secretary also—if he is listening to this important point—to acknowledge and to give the House an undertaking that he will invoke the Hague preference on by-catches and on other crucial matters in which it would be to the benefit of the United Kingdom fishing industry to do so? There is a very strong feeling in the industry about that matter. I should be grateful if, in his reply, he would say on which matters the Hague preference will be invoked.
Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on saithe? Again, there is a sizeable reduction, from 115,000 tonnes to 97,000 tonnes. The industry feels that, in trying to meet the revised position on saithe, we will end up with a lot of dumping of fish from vessels that do not have a quota


for saithe. That brings the issue of discards—which I know is of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—into sharper focus.
When the Minister has studied the figures for the western Scotland waters, he will be aware that some of the small quotas in that area produce precisely the opposite effect. Reducing pressure mathematically results in increased pressure biologically and increased discard rates. That issue also requires a great deal of care.
I should like to raise two matters, one connected with herring and the other with horse mackerel. The Parliamentary Secretary said nothing about a significant change that resulted from discussions between the European Union and Norway. For the first time, the Norwegians have secured a permanent stock share of 29 per cent. of the herring in the North sea. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but if he had had meetings with the industry, he would not have been laughing when that point was raised. I would not like the Minister to damage his reputation with the industry by laughing.

Mr. Morley: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was an ironic laugh, given that that disadvantageous agreement was reached by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Jack: The present Government have been in power for nearly eight months. The Minister cannot for ever go back in time. I remind him that we are now eight months into the current fishing year. He has the responsibility of negotiating for the United Kingdom at the Council meeting tomorrow and raising matters on behalf of the UK industry. The industry has suggested that he was a little lax in that agreement, and that 29 per cent. is too high. He may like to comment on that.
Will the Minister tell the House whether he will probe the basis of introducing TAC for horse mackerel for the first time? He will be aware of the concerns over the misrecording of those stocks and he will understand that when those stocks come to be allocated by the Commission, catch recordings and the historic track record are crucial. The industry would like his assurance that the matter will be addressed.
There is concern that, in certain cases, mackerel may well have been recorded as horse mackerel. The matter obviously needs clearing up. They may be points of detail, but, if they are not properly evaluated at this stage, we will not get a result in the amount of fish available to the UK that will help our industry to be viable. When the Minister issues his written parliamentary answer giving us the results—it would be too much to ask him to make a statement to the House—we shall need to know what he has achieved, to hold him accountable for his stewardship of these matters.
A moment ago, I mentioned area VI in the west of Scotland. Will the Minister consider extremely carefully the stocks there—particularly the stocks of cod and whiting? The industry feels strongly that the result in that area will increase discards. The Mallaig fishermen undertook a scientific calculation which shows that nearly 4,000 tonnes of saithe could be dumped in pursuit of meeting the narrow, limited and reduced quotas that are on offer. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider cod, whiting and saithe in the context of my remarks. In respect of whiting and saithe, will he give the House an assurance that he will examine the credentials of using the Hague preference, should it prove necessary?
In the context of the seas around the shores of western Scotland, what will the Minister do to address the blatant manipulation by the Dutch during their presidency in achieving the result on Atlanto-Scandian herring? There is a real need for the UK to return to the issue and get the quotas sorted out. The industry feels very strongly that, in the nicest sense, the UK was taken to the cleaners on that matter. It would like to know what the Minister will do in the negotiations to try to put matters right.

Mr. Salmond: Which Government were in power when the United Kingdom was taken to the cleaners on that vital matter of herring?

Mr. Jack: I am looking to what the Minister can do in negotiations. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who will know of the Scottish industry's strong feelings, chooses to chastise me.
What will the Minister do about Irish sea haddock? It has come to the notice of the industry that that stock is now abundant. I should be grateful if he gave a commentary on how we will approach negotiations on the haddock quota in the Irish sea. The industry feels that the science of the cod stocks in that area has improved. Egg surveys, for example, which clearly affect the spawning stock biomass in that part of the ocean, are now positive, after being gloomy. I should be pleased to know whether the Minister will look at that matter.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) is present and will no doubt be advocating the same line on behalf of fishermen in Fleetwood. They have not had the easiest of times, so some reflection in our quotas of the improvement in cod and haddock stocks in the Irish sea would be much appreciated.
Will the Minister consider several other matters concerning stocks? Whiting in area Vila is again above its safe biological level, and a reduction is proposed. I should be grateful if the Minister looked again at industry representations on that and told us precisely what he will do.
I draw the Minister's attention to an anomaly in channel stocks of cod. The discussion at the beginning of the debate illustrated the fact that the quantity of North sea cod has increased. He will know that, biologically, parts of the channel stocks include North sea cod. Yet, bizarrely, due to the way in which the ICES areas are broken down, some aspects of the channel cod quotas are going down, while other parts of the same North sea stock are going up. The industry would be pleased to know whether the Minister will argue for consistency. It would also be grateful if the Minister considered plaice and sole stocks in that context.
May I raise a point that I outlined at the beginning of my remarks on the difficulties of some Essex fishermen in the Thames estuary who are trying to scratch a living by fishing sole? When I held the Minister's portfolio, I battled with that problem. I have great sympathy for fishermen in the non-sector who are facing extinction due to the very small quantities of sole. Will the Minister please have another look at that problem on behalf of those fishermen? Perhaps a new fishing regime is required; perhaps one that mirrors the cockles regime, which works extremely well for the Thames fishermen. The matter must be looked at very carefully.
I conclude my remarks on stocks by asking the Minister to examine very carefully the inter-relationship in area VII between angler fish and megrim. Will the Government


take account of the fact that the reductions in TAC stocks of angler fish, megrim and whiting, which are taken together in a mixed fishery, will lead to an increase in discards in the next fishing period, not a reduction in fishing mortality? That mixture underpins the fishery in area VII and it is important that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies to that point.
I should be grateful if the Minister acknowledged some of the concerns expressed in the interventions in his speech by several hon. Members when he commented about the areas for sand eels, megrim, monkfish, turbot, skate, rays and mixed flatfish in the North sea where new TACs will be imposed.
The industry is worried that the basis for the determination of those TACs will not be the full catch from 1996. Questions of misrecording must also be addressed and some proper scientific research undertaken in area VI to discover whether the figures are worth the paper they are printed on. Those are important points for the industry and I should be grateful if the Minister would consider them carefully.
On the broader issues, the Minister regaled us a moment ago with the situation on MAGP IV. He gave us a lot of detail and it was the first definitive reply to representations made on the matter by the industry in its letter of 23 September. The industry had been concerned by the lack of a reply and I hope that the Minister who is to reply will give an assurance that definitive responses will be sent to the industry's communications.
I was interested to read the comments of the Minister of Transport who, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench this time last year, told the House:
I will protect the UK fishing industry and ensure that we continue with our basic premise—that there will be no further reduction in UK fishing capacity or fishing effort until the whole issue of quota hoppers is resolved. I hope that that is perfectly clear."—[Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 665.]
It is not clear how the matter of quota hoppers is to be resolved.
The Minister put before the House a list of economic relationships that he hopes to have written into licences. He said nothing about what will be in next year's licences to advance the solution to the problem of quota hoppers. He told us nothing about any legal advice that he has taken on his proposals. That is like Chamberlain returning to the airport at Heston, saying, "I have an agreement", only to find that war broke out soon afterwards.
What legal advice has the Ministry sought to ensure that as soon as the economic relationship requirements are written into a UK licence, the Spanish do not whack the matter into the European Court? If that happens, the potential solution to quota hoppers, which is only a piece of paper at the moment, could be set back for three years. If the solution is set back in the European Court, how can the Minister rely on the assurance given to the House by the Minister of Transport, when he was the Opposition spokesman, that there would be no further reduction in fishing capacity or effort in this country until the matter was resolved? Several issues are still unresolved.

Mr. Morley: I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of the details of the proposed economic links, which were made very public in the

exchange of letters. The economic links, as they were worded, were approved by the Commission and by the President of the Commission. As he and the Commission have responsibilities as guardians of the treaties, that approval counts for a great deal. In previous disputes, such as Factortame and the amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—when the Government were taken to court and lost—the Commission did not support the Government's approach.

Mr. Jack: It is all right the hon. Gentleman saying that the Commission helped design this set of words, but I understand that the Commission said that it would be happy to receive proposals based on a set of principles. The Government have made proposals, but have not yet subjected them to the testing experience of European law. I will gladly give way to the Minister if he will stand up and say that the Commission's legal advice—or, indeed, the legal advice available to the Council—has said definitively that these proposals are not able to be challenged in the European Court. Has he had any bilateral discussions with Spain and received an assurance from that country that it for one will not challenge us on the proposals?

Mr. Morley: Those discussions are still taking place with the Commission. Nevertheless, the wording will be agreed with the advice of the Commission, which is the guardian of the treaty. No matter how one words any licence condition, there is no guarantee that any member state or individual will not take one to court. We have to ensure that the conditions we put forward are in line with European law, and we are confident we can do that.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming to the House that there is no guarantee that these measures will work. That is very significant. [Interruption.] I will give way again to the Minister if he wants to clarify his words, but he has admitted in open debate in the House that there is no guarantee that the discussions are continuing, and he has not had the benefit of an opinion from the Commission, the Council or anybody else. He has had no bilateral talks with Spain to discuss the issue. At the moment, all we have is a series of paper proposals which may or may not deal with the issue. We have no indication of the Minister's fall-back position.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that these measures on the economic link are working? Fishermen in my constituency have told me that one of the quota hoppers has taken on two British fishermen, when they did not take on fishermen before.

Mr. Jack: That is very interesting. When representatives of the industry talked to me, one of the concerns they expressed was the seducing away of fishermen from the British industry to work, for example, on Dutch boats. That is the industry's concern—not mine. The hon. Gentleman says that the measures are working, but he may find that they do not work because they are not worth the paper on which they are printed. The Minister has made that clear to the House tonight.

Dr. George Turner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being churlish, to say the least,


in the way in which he is approaching a Minister who has achieved more in a few months than the previous Government achieved in years? Will he give the House a list of the nations that supported his proposal to have a treaty amendment? I should like to know who they were. His Government found no alternative and, although the measure remains to be worked through, this Government have done a lot more in the short period that I have been a Member of Parliament than the right hon. Gentleman achieved when he was a member of the Government.

Mr. Jack: At least we were going for a legally sound approach. I indicated that there was a precedent as, at Maastricht, we achieved an important protocol to the treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made clear how seriously he took the measure when he pointed out what our negotiating stance for the treaty would be. Sadly, the election did not allow him to test that out.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) perhaps shows little understanding of the way in which deals are done in Europe. Sometimes one starts off from a position of being 14-one down. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is currently 14-one down in terms of getting the specified risk materials ban introduced. However, he has persuaded the Commissioners to be on his side. Eventually, he may have to persuade other member states not to mount legal challenges. If he is terribly skilful and has enough time before Christmas, he may be able to cobble together an alliance that will suit his purpose, but when he has had a little more experience of negotiating he will see that sometimes a triumph can emerge from a difficult position, as was often the case when we were responsible for negotiating in Europe.
I do not want to prolong the Minister's agony, but it is clear that he is not able to give the House the assurance that we seek on quota hopping. That underpins his stance on MAGP IV, and he will find that in his rather broad-brush remarks dealing with the industry's requirements he has effectively subcontracted the effort reduction to the industry. He has not told us what specific help he may be able to give, and it is no use his saying that the Government are working within the spending limits of the previous Government, because that excuse runs out at the end of the period for which MAGP IV is required to run.
The Minister knows that there will be considerable concern, especially in the pelagic sector, as a result of what he has said. He knows something about the industry, so he will be aware that much new capacity is being invested in that sector, particularly in Scotland, and that those boats are now staring under-utilisation in the face as a result of what he has said.
I see that the Minister is conducting a private debate, but it is incumbent on him to listen to the points of Conservative Members, who at least are speaking on behalf of the industry. I should be grateful for an assurance that he will hold detailed and meaningful consultations with the industry about implementation and that he will give proper consideration to the economic impact of what he has said. He must recognise that there may have to be some compulsory element in a days-at-sea policy. I do not blame him for avoiding those difficult words, because we had enough problems when we were

looking after the situation, but we managed to avoid compulsion by a sensible decommissioning policy, and he has not.
I have dealt with the paucity of weight behind the Government's position on quota hopping, and the Minister has failed to give us satisfaction on the matter. I seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the Government will properly represent the interests of Scottish share fishermen, in particular, to avoid the excesses of the wholly unnecessary working time directive.
In signing up to the social chapter, the Government led us into this pretty mess, and we should like to think that they might have the sense to keep the fishing industry out of it. The industry has made representations on the matter, and I seek an assurance that Ministers will take it up.

Mr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman has some reservations about the working time directive, but will he confirm that he supports whole-heartedly the directive concerning the occupational safety of fishermen and acknowledge that, as part of that directive, there is a requirement concerning the carriage of immersion or survival suits? I have campaigned for that for many years, but it was always rejected by his colleagues at the Department of Transport.

Mr. Jack: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest and involvement in, and campaign on, safety matters. We have had exchanges before on the subject, and I hope that I gave him a positive response. I would have to check exactly what I said. I cannot be responsible for what others elsewhere in the then Government said in my absence, but I certainly acknowledge that safety is a key element. The industry is concerned about the implications, and he and I know, from a previous discussion on Scottish share fishermen of two different varieties, that the issue is very important to the people whom he represents.
The Minister talked about enforcement. I should be interested to hear more about that in the reply to the debate. We hear the sabre of enforcement being rattled, but the Minister knows that proper enforcement requires resources, which he has told us that he is stuck for. What is this great package of enforcement? When will he come clean and publish the details? Does he intend to benchmark the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement?
It is sad that the Minister was not able to confide in us what the United Kingdom's presidency priorities will be.

Mr. Morley: I did.

Mr. Jack: If he did, perhaps I did not hear properly. Perhaps those priorities could be put a little more sharply in focus in the reply to the debate. It would have been helpful if we could have spent a little more time hearing how the United Kingdom will pursue various priorities, because one of those could be the build-up to the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002.
Crucial issues are to be decided in the coming years, on the retention of the six and 12-mile limits; on the Shetland box; and on access to waters. I seek an assurance—[Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would pay attention, because my remarks represent the concerns of the fishing industry.
I seek an assurance that the Government will find time in the next 12 months for a debate so that we can all discuss some crucial matters about the reform of the common fisheries policy. It is crucial that we should have a clear position as the debate develops. We know the lines of the Commission's views as set out at Greenwich, and the subject is very important indeed.
The Minister has not given the House a clear outline of his policy on quota hopping. The policy on MAGP IV is indistinct and, sadly, we were not told how the Minister envisages the way forward for the common fisheries policy. It will be up to him and his ministerial team to prove whether they have the confidence of the fishing industry. Conservative Members will continue to do our best to ask the questions that are of concern to this vital national asset.

Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his first annual fishing debate. We spent many happy hours sitting behind him on the Opposition Benches when I was in the House previously. I especially welcome the much more constructive way in which these debates are now held; they were certainly bad-tempered, rancorous affairs under the previous Administration, but we are now talking constructively and purposefully about the industry.
In anticipation of his later contribution, I welcome the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), to the Front Bench. I think that this is his first appearance there. Like me, he has spent many happy hours in these fishing debates.
I suppose that I should also congratulate the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on his remarks, and especially on the way in which he managed to persuade himself, if no one else, that the Conservative Government had no responsibility for the mess that the fishing industry was put into over the past 18 years; it is a happy delusion, but I hope that he will eventually come out of it.
I was particularly interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the working time directive. As I recall it, it was introduced under health and safety provisions, not under the social chapter, as he was trying to suggest, and the previous Government had no alternative but to accept it, because it was part of the process of qualified majority voting, which they had accepted with the Single European Act 1985.
I especially welcome the Minister's statement, because it is good to hear such a realistic and constructive approach to the industry. For many years, those of us with fishing constituencies felt as though we were treading water, because the issue had become entangled in the previous Government's obsession with the larger issue of Europe and was not dealt with as a specific subject. We are making progress: I welcome in particular the comments on quotas and I hope that the matter will be successfully concluded at the Council meeting tomorrow. He described the package as a difficult one. Of course it is difficult because there are winners and losers, but that is inevitable given the nature of the industry.
I welcome the comments that my hon. Friend made on MAGP IV. That issue has been hanging over us like a dark cloud for some time now and it was never really

tackled. It is now being tackled and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's announcement about progress. Again, it is a difficult package with winners and losers, but there is no doubt that we are making progress.
We all want to see stability in our fishing industry. There was no stability during all my previous years here. It seemed to be one crisis after another as quotas bit deeper and there was conflict about the proper methods to be adopted to reduce or limit effort. We are now taking a coherent approach to the industry and I am pleased with the progress being made.
My constituency interest is in the fish processing side of the industry. Stability is extremely important there. In Aberdeen city, 3,500 jobs depend on the fish processing industry and all those people welcome the progress that is being made. A number of issues facing that industry are causing grave concern and I should like to refer to them.
Fishing is a food industry and there are remarkable similarities between the problems of the fishing industry and the current problems in agriculture. This week seems-to have been dominated, certainly in my life, by the food industry. We had meetings yesterday with a beef producer and today we have had contact with the fishing industry.
One of the serious problems facing the processing industry is the European directive requiring the harmonisation of veterinary charges. That is causing immense concern. I was given some examples by the United Kingdom Fish Merchants and Processors Federation. The current charge for 30 consignments of fish is £197, which works out at about £6 per consignment. After 1 January, the figure will leap to £3,423. That is a massive leap in an industry that is fairly fragmented and where there are a large number of small operators.
There is also massive concern about the problem of urban waste water treatment as a result of directive 91/271/EEC. That is the concept of producer pays. The industry is a massive consumer of water and is facing real difficulties as local water authorities apply that directive to local industry.
Another major issue of concern—I have been lobbied on this recently by a number of companies in my constituency and outside—is the problem of imported fish. Our industry uses about 100,000 tonnes of cod a year, but our catch is only about 70,000 tonnes. The extra 30,000 tonnes is imported, the bulk of those imports coming from Russia. As a result of EEC decisions, there are major difficulties in connection with the Russian imports. A number of companies throughout the north-east of Scotland have no other fish but cod from Russia as their staple product.
The regulations that now apply to fish freezer vessels have meant that those vessels are no longer landing fish in the United Kingdom. The industry is finding it difficult to understand why the United Kingdom is applying those regulations much harder and tighter than any other EU country. In particular, we understand that all the other EU countries are still importing Russian fish. I have told the Minister that I want a meeting with him on this matter, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say on the issue.

Mr. Salmond: There is further irony in that point. As the hon. Gentleman said, other countries are still importing Russian fish, which means that the finished


product—the processed fish—will then be imported. We shall be eating the same fish as the Government have disqualified. The difference is that the jobs will be in other countries, not just European Union countries. It seems ridiculous for the Government to allow that to continue.

Mr. Doran: I understand that point. It is important to examine the situation. As I understand it, Russian fish is still being imported into other EU countries. It is difficult for fish processors in north-east Scotland to obtain supplies from elsewhere, even at the high prices that some importers are prepared to charge because they know that there is a gap in the market. I would appreciate it if the Minister would comment on that.
I will be brief because I know that many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I should like to refer to the efforts being made by councils in the north-east of Scotland in relation to the fish industry. The three local authorities in my area—Aberdeen city council, Aberdeenshire council and Moray council—have recently formed a joint fisheries partnership. The aim of that partnership is to improve the area's ability to attract new industry connected with the fishing industry and to improve the safety, the image and the profile of the fishing industry.
The Lord Provost of Aberdeen city council has begun chairing a regular meeting with leading fishing industry figures. The city is contributing to a massive change in the image and servicing of the industry. For example, it has undertaken an improvement in the harbour area, in which the fish processing industry is situated. It is co-operating with the local harbour board to upgrade the Aberdeen fish market, mainly to improve the image but also to introduce health and safety measures that will place the city's facilities among the leaders in Europe in terms of the services provided and the quality of the fish that passes through the market. A new dress code and a new hygiene code have been introduced. The city council has taken the view that it is an important industry for the city. As I have said, about 3,500 fish processing jobs are involved there and the council is making magnificent efforts.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As I said earlier, it is a novel experience for me, on my return to the House, to find the annual fishing debate to be constructive and reasonable. I hope that that will continue in the future.

Mr. John Townend: In their election manifesto, the Government said that they would work for the reform of the common fisheries policy. For fishing ports such as Bridlington, which I have the honour to represent, that is vital. If there is to be a fishing industry after 2002, we need reform of the CFP.
The Government have been asked on several occasions what they intend to do for fisheries during the United Kingdom presidency. No answer was given by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the Parliamentary Secretary did give an answer on 3 November. When the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) asked about the Council of Ministers meeting on 3 October, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
I made it clear that the United Kingdom would seek to reach an agreement during its Presidency of the European Union next year"—[Official Report, 3 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 37.]

to phase out the use of drift nets. We know that the issue of drift nets is important, but when the British fishing industry is collapsing by the day and we are told that during its presidency the UK will concentrate on drift nets, one must question the priorities.
I suppose we should be grateful for the fact that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), was clear about what the Government are doing about reform because he said that there will be no opportunity to revise that fishing policy for some years. That is a lot of hope for the fishing industry.
Following discussions on quota hoppers, the Government have said that they intend to "strengthen the economic benefits" that countries derive from their quotas. It is time that the Government understood that the national allocation of quota is a discriminatory derogation terminating in the year 2002. That is a mistake that we Conservatives made. A derogation cannot be reformed; it simply expires. We are left with the task of trying to obtain a new derogation, which will become increasingly difficult.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman may have been daydreaming when I mentioned the priorities for the UK presidency, which included enforcement, marketing and preparing for the debate on common fisheries policy changes in 2002. The principle of relative stability is not a derogation and will not expire in 2002 unless there is a majority vote against it.

Mr. Townend: The question of fishing up to our coasts is a derogation. The Government say that they will apply effective controls of fishing efforts. That is probably why, in respect of decommissioning, licences have been split from track records. The Government know that the track record is the valuable part and want the industry to decommission itself or fall into foreign hands. Decommissioning is cheap, and will allow the Treasury to meet its targets for economic and monetary union. However, the track record is the fishing effort. Fishing effort will not be reduced by taking a vehicle out of service and allowing the catch allocation to go to others. That is nonsense.
The Minister talked about black fish. Lord Sewel, a Scottish Office Minister, has made it clear that the Government's aim is to clamp down on black fish. We should not forget what black fish are: the over-quota landing of species caught as part of a mixture of species. It is illegal, but what is the alternative? Dumping tens of thousands of fish into the sea to pollute the ocean is not conservation—it is nonsense.
It is Government policy to agree to more effective conservation measures. What went wrong on 30 October when for three species of fish the minimum landing size was reduced well below the breeding size? The reason given, along with the discarding rules, was the need to reduce the quantity of fish discarded—on paper, not in practice. Any fool can reduce discards on paper. One can make them nil if the minimum landing size is a tiddler. The Government made a big mistake by taking down the sizes for two flat fish: plaice to 22 cm and megrim to 20 cm. They should know that those fish have no swim bladders. If the juvenile fish they now want to market were returned to the water immediately under the present


discarding rules, the majority would live. It is round fish with swim bladders that die, because their bladders burst coming up through the pressure zone. That is why they float belly up when discarded for seagulls to attack. The Government regard it as acceptable to catch juvenile fish below breeding size because they say that it is wasteful to require the discarding of fish that are unmarketable.
We talk about the common application of the rules. As a member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, I go to Strasbourg and Paris regularly. One has only to walk around the fish markets to see the minuscule fish on sale there. The Danes were correct to vote against the conservation measures.
The Government say that they want to improve the way in which quotas are managed. The way the Government are going, there will be no UK quota. Whatever the Minister says, it will cease in 2003 because we shall have a permit system then. We have now accepted that.
Finally, the Government want a greater regional dimension to the CFP. I forecast that that will involve the same regions that the United Kingdom will be broken up into as we become a Europe of regions in a federal state. It is no good giving us nonsense about regional management being the same as coastal state control. The one hands over the competence to organise fisheries to Brussels, which the Government seem to agree with, while the other, which the industry wants, gives the competence to coastal states.
If they are honest, the Government see no possibility of reforming the CFP to the benefit of fishermen. On 11 November in the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Minister questioned whether we could get Spain to vote for a package of measures that went directly against its interests.

Mr. Morley: It has a veto.

Mr. Townend: The Minister is right. The answer is that there will be no reform of the CFP for the benefit of the British fishermen. Nor will a further discriminative derogation be obtained, except perhaps for six-mile and partial six to 12-mile limits. The other nations will extract an enormous price from the United Kingdom for those 52 votes.
The Government have failed on another election promise. They are going to let the advantage of the six-month presidency slip through their fingers. They will let the British fishing industry sink because little can be done with 10 votes. They are merely office boys carrying out their master's instructions. For that, they are prepared to see a vital national interest disappear beneath the waves.
There is only one real culprit in the decline of the fishing industry: the European Union. The Minister mentioned that things were not always right in countries outside the CFP. He is correct. The Canadians mishandled the situation off the Newfoundland banks, but at least a nation state can impose a proper management system. If our fishing industry could enjoy the prosperity of those

of Norway and Iceland, our fishermen would be much happier. It is a betrayal of this country, of our fishing industry and of a great national resource—

Mr. Mitchell: Who did it?

Mr. Townend: The guilty men are my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. One accepted the fisheries policy when we came in and the other refused to deal with it when we renegotiated. Fish are an important national resource. It is nonsense that North sea oil is a British resource but that the fish swimming around the oil rigs are a European resource.
I hate to say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), but we lost every fishing seat of any size at the general election, with the exception of mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). If we are to win those seats back, we must change our policy. We must stop looking at Europe through rose-coloured spectacles. We must accept that our national interest is the repatriation of the CFP.

Mrs. Christine Butler: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. It is a privilege to speak in that House. I am proud to represent the people of Castle Point and greatly honoured by their will to have me serve as their Member of Parliament.
In 1992, my predecessor, Robert Spink, became Member of Parliament for what was considered a safe Conservative seat. He became a parliamentary private secretary and I know that he looked forward to a long parliamentary career. Despite his deep disappointment at losing his seat, he was gracious in defeat. He was the first to shake my hand after the result and I wish to put on record my respect for the dignity that he accorded public life that night.
I also pay tribute to Lord Braine of Wheatley, a former Father of the House, whom many of my constituents remember with affection simply as Bernard Braine. He was a Member of Parliament for more than 40 years, withstanding the boundary changes that saw the creation of the new seat of Castle Point from the former Essex, South-East constituency.
I would not like to forget another of my predecessors, Captain Ray Gunter. He was first elected to Parliament in the Labour landslide of 1945. Ray's service to this country during the second world war, his commitment to his constituents throughout his time as a Member of Parliament, and his later contribution to the trades union movement have become an outstanding testimony to his belief in a better future. From that line, I am the first Labour Member of Parliament in almost half a century to represent South Benfleet, Thundersley, Hadleigh and Canvey Island, all of which form the constituency of Castle Point.
The constituency of Castle Point and Castle Point borough council were created on conterminous boundaries in the 1970s. Their name is derived from the well-known landmarks of Hadleigh castle and Canvey point. My constituency lies along the east side of the Thames estuary. It is within the port of London, but just outside the Thames corridor. It has grown from tiny townships


and villages to a present population of about 85,000 people. Its rapid post-war growth has been due in no small measure to the resettlement of people from east and north London, who wanted to live in more pleasant surroundings without entirely breaking their links with London. Every day, the London-Tilbury-Southend line carries thousands of my constituents in and out of London to work.
Castle Point now forms part of the larger conurbation of south-east Essex. Its post-war history has defined it primarily as a commuting area, without large-scale industry or commerce. It has one of the highest rates of home ownership and dependency on the private motor car in England. It has grown, however, and been left to get on as best it may without any foreseen need for help or intervention.
The time for change has come. Our roads are bursting at the seams; our young people need more help into training and post-16 education opportunities; we cannot meet the demand for affordable homes to rent; and 55 per cent. of our work force have to travel out of the area to make a living. Most of all, Castle Point needs a better balance between employment opportunities, patterns of transport and housing and amenity provision. I look forward to the challenge of renewal and regeneration while protecting those assets that we hold dear.
One of the jewels in our crown must surely be the ancient ruins of Hadleigh castle, which are perched high on the downs above Benfleet Creek. It offers unparalleled views over much of my constituency and across the river Thames to the fields of Kent. To the west of the castle, the great oil refineries of Shell and BP at Coryton dominate the flat landscape of Canvey Island. To the east, beyond the grazing marshes and saltings, is the wider estuary and the southern North sea. Whatever the season, it is always a wonderful place to be. Such an abrupt meeting of times past and present gives pause for thought to the future.
From that high point one can see, morning and evening, slowly moving convoys of cars attempting the daily journey to and from work. One can also make out the vast areas of housing on Canvey Island, developed from the old plotlands in a piecemeal approach to planning which is the bane of its current residents. My constituents know what it is to suffer from poor planning. We treasure the benefits that we have accrued through foresight and we bemoan the effects of the lack of it.
Hadleigh castle stands proud as a symbol of the indomitable spirit of the people who live in my constituency. They want changes that can bring a better quality of life and a more sustainable future. No borough can achieve on its own solutions to problems that have a regional dimension, be they connected with transport, planning or economic development. That is why I have such an unshakable belief in the invaluable support that a regional development agency, working within a national policy framework, can offer to smaller districts.
Castle Point needs to attract investment to provide work for a mix of skills and age groups. Through the local plan, we are beginning the process of regeneration. Acres of derelict land on Canvey Island are now designated for retail employment use and for amenity and environmental upgrading. An outward and forward-looking approach has been the key to that new planning framework. It is an

approach that recognises the inherent possibilities within one's own area, understands its needs and looks for partners in a mutual venture.
A pressing task before us all is the creation of jobs within a sustainable economic and environmental future. It is no mean task, but I am excited by the steps that the Government are taking. At last, we have leadership aimed at the longer-term economic policy; we have leadership in transport; at last, we have leadership in tackling environmental problems at home and abroad; and at long last, we have a Britain that recognises the value of its people through its employment, training and education policies. The framework we are now setting nationally will give confidence to putative investors who are looking for stable economic conditions, good industrial relations, a skilled work force and a fine place to locate.
Change does not necessarily mean replacement. It is also about the growth of indigenous enterprise, renewed effort towards worthwhile conservation and a greater respect for nature and heritage.
Besides the container vessels and barges trading in the Port of London there are still small fishing boats, the defiant remains of a beleaguered industry. It is one of our oldest industries, which dates back to Saxon times, and we are determined to keep it and strengthen it. Fishing on the Thames will not survive without a joint approach, and that is why the inshore fishermen of Castle Point, along with those from Kent and the rest of Essex, are as one behind the strategy for coastal state management.
We owe a great deal to our intrepid fishermen, who refused to give in when their living became so precarious. They are encouraged by the efforts now being made on their behalf by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know that there is a common understanding of the best way forward. As in many other policy areas, the watchword must be sustainability. That means better management of inshore fisheries and ecosystems so that in the long term we are replenishing stock and not decimating it through an outdated and inadequate approach that had more to do with political trade-offs than science and common sense.
The new approach must be based on co-operation within the industry between member states. There are signs that that is beginning to happen and I hope that sound arguments will eventually win everywhere.
I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister has had to say today. He has offered us an improvement on what we had and an improvement on what some might have expected. I am particularly encouraged by his focus on several dimensions that are important to fisheries policy. For example, I am encouraged by a sound approach designed to improve standards of enforcement, which will include better monitoring and tougher policies. I am also encouraged by the much more holistic approach to stock management than we have seen before and the more positive yet resolute approach within Europe.
I am delighted to have been included in this debate. I wish my hon. Friend well as he negotiates for British fishermen agreements based on sustainability and better enforcement in days to come.

Mr. Andrew George: I am honoured to be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her first-class maiden speech. I do not


know that part of the country well, but I gained a clear impression not only of the eyesores but of the attractions of her constituency. I am sure that she will make a good job of representing the people of that area. I share her enthusiasm for protecting the interests of the inshore fishing fleet. She was right to emphasise the importance of that.
I should also like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on introducing this annual debate for the first time as Minister with responsibility for the fisheries. I join him in congratulating the industry on continuing to make constructive suggestions and on entering into constructive dialogue with the Government and the Opposition parties to bring forward positive proposals for future development of the industry. I welcome much but not all of what the Minister brought us in his statement, but I certainly welcome efforts to control industrial fishing—something which the industry has long looked for.
A fundamental point that will emerge from the debate, and which the Minister must recognise, is the fact that the industry will not welcome his proposals for the pelagic sector, as they will have a devastating impact on it. It is important that no rash decisions are made on the pelagic sector. The Minister must discuss the matter with the industry and make progress on the exchange of letters about quota hopping that he mentioned earlier. He must do that before he makes a final decision and statement on the future for the pelagic sector under MAGP IV.
The memorandum that underlies the debate—and indeed the debate itself so far—reads like a mouthwatering medley of fish from the menu of the many highly acclaimed fish restaurants in Cornwall. I strongly recommend that right hon. and hon. Members present visit the many and various restaurants there.

Mr. Jack: Which ones?

Mr. George: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman after the debate. This is not an opportunity to advertise specific restaurants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, go on."] I recommend hon. Members to come to my part of the country and enjoy the many high-quality fish restaurants there. No doubt such restaurants are not confined to Cornwall but exist throughout the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has already read, covered, digested and repeated much of the briefing from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. There is much detail about the proposed amendments to the total allowable catches for each species, on which the Minister will negotiate tomorrow. It is not possible to go through every aspect of that again.
I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Fylde said about the inconsistencies in some of the proposed advice, but I cannot agree with the Conservative amendment. As we are supposed to be living in a country that has not only a new Labour new Government but—as from this autumn, I understand—a new and apologetic Conservative party, is it appropriate for the Conservatives to debate fishing in the House without first offering an apology for its treatment of the fishing industry in past years?
There are some important points of principle concerning the proposals for total allowable catches. I shall mention two. The first is the scientists' two-dimensional assessment of the way in which the fishing industry operates. Much of the science is based on single-species assessment and fails properly to recognise the reality of a mixed-catch industry.
That is nothing new. If I may draw the attention of the House to my part of the world again, I might mention that next week in Mousehole we shall be celebrating what is called Tom Bawcock's Eve. At this time of year, west Cornwall celebrates the time when, after starvation and poverty because of storms in the western approaches, Tom Bawcock went out from Mousehole, braved the storms and brought back seven sorts of fish. There are songs to remember that time and to celebrate the seven sorts of fish that he brought back. The occasion will be celebrated next week in the village, with the baking of many stargazy pies. I am sure that the Minister will know about them; the fishes' faces poke out of the pie.
Things have not changed, so science must develop more to reflect the realities of the industry. I believe that the Minister is aware of that. It is important that the scientific assessment of the way in which the industry operates should develop and become more sophisticated, to reflect the fact that many fishermen now rely on what we know as mixed catches and that it is difficult to direct oneself at one particular species.
It is also difficult to react to changes in the quota that are too dramatic—and there are some dramatic changes in the proposed total allowable catches that the Minister has announced. We need a longer-term perspective on stocks. There may be a 40 per cent. floor for TAC reductions, but the Minister must recognise that 40 per cent. represents a massive swing—a massive cut—for the affected fishermen. Short-term stock assessments lead to what the industry perceives as imperfect and erratic advice.
As the right hon. Member for Fylde said, there are sometimes erratic interpretations in connection with the proposals for cod and haddock in the North sea. There are many mixed fisheries and, as has been mentioned in connection with the west coast of Scotland saithe, they may be forced to respond simply by altering their discard levels. That will not necessarily reduce mortality rates even if it succeeds in reducing catch rates. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that that is an important point to take to the negotiations with his colleagues in Europe tomorrow. He should seek to redress that balance and deal with the problems that will inevitably arise.
For example, in area VII, at the port of Newlyn in my constituency, the potential loss of up to 40 per cent. of the megrim catch will mean that up to £1.3 million will go out of the local economy. Moreover, megrim underpin a wide range of mixed fisheries. That elaborates on the point that I made earlier. Not only will £1.3 million be lost to the local economy—directly to British fishermen—but there will be a knock-on effect in the local community.
Meanwhile, it has been announced today that in the Penzance and St. Ives travel-to-work areas in west Cornwall there has been a further 15 per cent. increase in unemployment. In other parts of the country, unemployment is ostensibly falling and there is a problem of overheating, even in the so-called south-west region,


of which Cornwall does not see itself as properly a part. In Cornwall, we still face the problem of continuing high and increasing unemployment. The news will hit the economy of west Cornwall harder than most other areas.
We shall have to look more closely at the Minister's statement on MAGP IV. I note that he did not use the phrase "days at sea" to describe effort control in the pelagic sector, but he must accept that there are implications for that sector and that, as a result of his proposals, days at sea could be restricted.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made the point effectively that, by using the review clause at the end of 1999, there will be an opportunity to review whether it is appropriate to manage the pelagic sector in that way. I know that the industry shares my concern about days at sea restrictions. If that is on the agenda, the Minister should realise that the pelagic fleet cannot be restricted in that way, because it must search grounds for days—even weeks—before it can start fishing. Such controls would be artificial, inappropriate and contradictory when the western mackerel stocks are to increase by up to 20 per cent.
I hope that the Minister accepts that decommissioning has been unequal across the fleet. Not only has there been a lack of pelagic involvement, but only two of the 600 vessels that have been decommissioned were Anglo-Spanish. What conclusions does the Minister draw from that? What action should we take?
That brings me to the issue of quota hoppers. The industry wants to know a great deal more about how the Government intend to deal with that problem. We must find a practical solution and not merely play games that fuel Europhobia or xenophobia. The Government should push this point very hard and use the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union to pursue the matter with great vigour.
We still do not know what progress has been made following the exchange of letters. I listened carefully to the Minister. He referred to the 1998 licences and suggested including clauses on the horsepower of boats. Clauses on the economic connection of boat to port could also be included. It is essential not to lose the opportunity to make progress, because this problem undermines the confidence of the industry and of British fishermen. We want to know what provisions the licences will contain and how soon such new clauses could be included. How does the Minister intend to implement and enforce his proposals? What is the likelihood of a legal challenge? How much support is there among other EU nations? What time scale does he propose? I hope that he will deal with those points in his winding-up speech, because the industry wants to know a great deal more.
I welcome the proposal to relate concerns about fishing management on a sustainable basis to the important issue of marine safety. I am deeply saddened to have brought to the House's attention the fishing tragedies that have occurred across the country. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) recently raised that issue to some effect.
I welcomed the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is responsible for shipping, while the Minister was making his statement. There should be increasing co-operation with colleagues in that Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions and in the Department of Trade and Industry, given its role in registering the telecommunications agency.
This year, 11 lives have been lost at sea in the fishing industry. That is the seriousness of the problem in my constituency: we lose more lives at sea than on the roads. The problem is not just with the management of the industry, but with the management of sea safety. Four men have been missing for more than a month. They were on the Margaretha Maria, which is 75 ft trawler from Newlyn. The families of those men will be facing their first Christmas without their father or their husband. It is an incredibly difficult time, and sadly such incidents have occurred all too often. It is important for the Minister to work with his colleagues to find practical solutions to those problems.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishing industry in Scotland is voicing great concern about the proposed closure of the Oban coastguard station and the Pentland station in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? I hope that the Fisheries Minister will be involved, on behalf of fishermen, in the consultation process that the Shipping Minister announced yesterday.

Mr. George: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention, because it amplifies and supports my point. This problem should not be seen merely as a coastguard management issue, because it affects the management of the industry and it has a knock-on effect on sea safety. St. Ives has lost a number of coastguard look-outs in recent years, and that greatly concerns people in the industry.
The abortive attempt to produce a new code of practice for under 12 m vessels shows the importance of cross-departmental co-operation. Those proposals have gone back to the drawing board, but had there been greater interdepartmental co-operation and had the industry been able to give advice, we would have made progress on a new code of practice for marine safety.
The Minister mentioned the importance of developing still further satellite surveillance programmes. There is a connection, because it is not just a problem of fishing management, but of sea safety. An appropriate and well-managed expansion of the use of satellite surveillance will be of great interest to the Minister's colleagues in other Departments.
The debate should concentrate on and draw attention to the major and golden opportunity for Britain to push forward with and set the agenda for the reform of the common fisheries policy—and my goodness it needs reform.

Mr. Gill: In earlier fishing debates, the hon. Gentleman spoke about reform of the common fisheries policy. Has he considered that it is virtually impossible to get any meaningful reform of that policy because it is almost impossible to get enough nations to support radical proposals? The hon. Gentleman speaks of reform, but does he not appreciate that that is a complete cop-out?

Mr. George: That was a fascinating intervention. Meanwhile, back in the real world—

Mr. Gill: Tell us how we can get reform.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One sure fire way to ensure that we do not get the co-operation of our European colleagues is to take the hon. Gentleman's attitude. If such attitudes prevail, obstacles will continue to be placed in our way.

Mr. Salmond: Of course it is difficult to get member states to agree, but not long ago the Spanish Government managed to get our Government's support for accelerated access to western waters. If there can be movement one way can there not be movement in the other?

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is appropriate. Perhaps supporters of the previous Government should bear that point in mind when they speak about securing a better future for British fishermen. They should ask themselves why the Spanish fleet got access to western waters six years before there was any need for that fleet to have it. I should like to make progress because I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
As the Minister has said, if the common fisheries policy, with all its faults, did not exist, some international agreement or pan-European co-operation would be needed for fishing in international waters. In pursuing an agenda for the reform of the common fisheries policy during our six-months presidency, I hope that the Minister and the Government will not stand back with the usual British sense of fair play but will be robust in their efforts to secure fair play for British fishermen.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: No, because I want to make progress.
The agenda for reform must include equality in monitoring and enforcement by member states, and transparency in implementation by member states of MAGP IV. It must secure a practical solution to the issue of quota hopping and set an agenda for effective reform of the policy on the principles of sustainability, decentralisation, equality of monitoring and enforcement. It must promote and protect the interests of our inshore fleet.
The Minister spoke about the need to decommission the tuna drift net fishery. I have raised the matter with him before. Such decommissioning can happen only if the Minister recognises that there must be adequate compensation and retraining to ensure that people are not pushed out of fishing altogether but are allowed to develop other forms of fishing. They are pursuing species that are off quota.

Mr. Hayes: I was inspired to re-enter the Chamber by the length and honesty of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I must press him on how robust he is prepared to be. He spoke about a more robust approach and has given illustrations. His Cornish fishermen and mine in Lincolnshire will want to know how robust he and his party are prepared to be. For example, would they be prepared to say that there will be no treaty without an end to quota hopping? It is fine to play the game of being robust but people want to know how far the Liberal Democrats and people such as the hon. Gentleman are prepared to go in defence of the national interest.

Mr. George: My party would not support the hon. Gentleman's proposal. We took the seat in St. Ives

because of Conservative Europhobia and Euroscepticism and not in spite of them. People have seen through that line.
I should like to draw attention to the importance of protecting the inshore fishery. Significantly, the south-west mackerel handline fishery in Cornwall closed down last night. The irony is that it is the most sustainable of all fisheries and such closures should not happen. If that fishery cannot be taken off quota, with conditions, which is what I should like, the Minister must hold back or set aside quota that can be made available later in the year if it is needed. I hope that he will address the importance of protecting not only the inshore fleet and the artisan fleet but the mackerel handliners which are the most sustainable of all fisheries.
We urge the Government forcefully to press for the optimum fishing opportunities for British fishermen and to base their demands on sustainable management, effective enforcement and a recognition of regional differences in the fisheries. In this traditional annual debate on the industry, we ask the Government to recognise their obligation to drive forward the fishing debate during their presidency to ensure equality of monitoring and enforcement by member states and transparency in the implementation of MAGP IV. They should clarify with the industry progress on the exchange of letters about quota hopping. We must set the agenda for the reform of the common fisheries policy and ensure that it is based on a decentralised system. We must incorporate closed areas, make effective use of satellite surveillance and protect the inshore industry.
I have raised some technical points on next year's proposed tax and I encourage the Minister to listen closely to the industry's views on his proposals. He should recognise the potentially devastating impact of those proposals on the pelagic sector and discuss that with the industry before he implements them. The next six months will present Britain with a golden opportunity to drive forward the necessary reforms to the common fisheries policy. We cannot afford to lose that opportunity.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I compliment my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on a fine maiden speech. I wish her many years of fruitful labour on behalf of her constituents, whom I have no doubt she will ably represent.
The Minister's opening speech was the proverbial curate's egg. Much was welcome, but some aspects caused great concern. On behalf of the Northern Ireland fishing industry, I particularly welcome the lack of further reduction in the demersal and nephrops fleet, and the apparent abandonment of the concept of limitation of days at sea. In the limited time that the House expects one to impose by self-discipline, I shall refer only to matters that particularly affect Northern Ireland fishing.
I remind the Minister that the Northern Ireland fishing industry is especially vulnerable in two aspects. First, it has already done its share in terms of conservation and the development of fishing stocks by contributing, from its own resources, a 40 per cent. reduction in fishing effort over the past few years. We would like the other members of the European Union to catch up before any further obstacles are put in the way of our local fishing fleets.
The industry in Northern Ireland is basically a coastal industry, mainly confined to the Irish sea. The communities that foster the ports of Kilkeel, Ardglass and


Portavogie are totally dependent on it, and if the fishing industry were to collapse, so would those communities. There is no other sustainable employment in those areas, so this is not a matter of a potential threat to one specific economic sector, but a threat to the entire economic life of such areas. That is why I emphasise the contribution already made to conservation by the Northern Ireland fishing fleet, and hope that sympathetic consideration will be given to further development of the industry, which is currently on a knife edge.
Of particular concern to the Northern Ireland fishing fleet is whiting in area VIIa. It would seem that, during 1997, fishermen have consistently reported large shoals in the western Irish sea. I know as well as anyone what a fisherman's tale can be, and, in reality, that is almost an unprovable experience.
Scientifically speaking, Irish sea whiting has been on a roller coaster for the past few years. In 1996, the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management recommended an increase of 22.5 per cent. in the total allowable catch; and for 1997, it recommended a cut of 28 per cent. Unfortunately, the scientific community now recommends a cut in the TAC for 1998 of about 49 per cent., from the present 7,500 tonnes to 3,800, although I know that that suggestion has been mitigated by the European Commission to a reduced level of 4,500 tonnes.
I cannot understand what made the ACFM and the European Commission take that course when, according to the ACFM, the stock is considered to be within safe biological limits and spawning stock biomass appears to be stable. If the ACFM says that, why is it recommending a 49 per cent. cut? That requires immediate further investigation. Irish sea haddock in area VII also seems to be more common than scientific evidence would suggest. The restrictions are imposed because of scientific evidence that seems to be at variance with the experience of local fishermen.
Although herring fishing is not a major factor in the overall industry, the local fleet is nevertheless facing a considerable and continuing problem relating to the closure of the Douglas box off the south-east coast of the Isle of Man. If some effort were made by the Minister and his Ministry to reduce the time and the extent of the closure, it might provide an alternative crop for local fishermen in Northern Ireland.
The other question I shall briefly address is the Hague preference—that annual problem afflicting Northern Ireland fishermen in particular. As in previous years, it is likely that the Government of the Republic of Ireland will invoke the Hague preference in respect of Irish sea cod, whiting and plaice. Given that an extremely low whiting TAC is likely to be set, that will mean even further erosion of the UK's Irish sea whiting allocation, and also the probability that the Republic of Ireland will have less whiting to swap in the coming season.
Will the Minister address that problem, which might be resolved by way of bilateral agreement between the UK Government and that of the Republic of Ireland? It should be possible to come to some rational arrangement that could be automatically put in train year by year, rather than the Dutch option, which offers unpredictability year after year.
I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to regional specialisation in the Northern Ireland fishing industry. I am not asking for special treatment for

Northern Ireland's industry, as distinct from that of the UK, but for it to be looked at separately, in the sense that it has a dimension separate from that of certain other UK regions.
As I said, Northern Ireland's fishing industry is predominantly coastal, but it has been scientifically recognised that Northern Ireland's fishing grounds contain a biomass unique in European coastal waters. The confluence of the seas, both north and south, create unique conditions that have never really been recognised in terms of the availability of species within the main fishing grounds of the Northern Ireland fleet. Will the Minister take that aboard as a separate subject for investigation?
I remind the Minister of a statement made in 1992 in a European Commission report, "Regional Socio-economic Studies in the Fishing Sector". That report said in respect of Northern Ireland:
There are currently very few alternative employment opportunities. Perhaps this is the one area where the maintenance of fish and the related industry employment should be a priority.
In that context, and in view of the coastal nature of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet and the unique breeding and fishing grounds, will the Minister look at the possibility not of giving our fleet special treatment, but of making it the subject of separate assessment, distinct from other regions in the UK, in order to see whether a different viability attaches to the Northern Ireland industry?
Those are the highlights of the non-national points I wish to make. Time allows me only to pinpoint them on behalf of the Northern Ireland fishing industry. I should like to think that, when he goes to Brussels—I think tomorrow—the Minister will be accompanied by his noble Friend Lord Dubs, who is the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office responsible for agriculture and fisheries. That practice has proved successful in previous years, and I should be disappointed if Lord Dubs were not personally present to sustain and advance the special interests of the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
Finally, I ask again whether there can be a bilateral arrangement with the Republic of Ireland in respect of the transfer and swapping of quotas with the Northern Ireland fishing fleet, so as to allow a more measured and more permanent relationship in terms of that specific variation of the invoking of the Hague preference.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her maiden speech. When she rose to speak, I and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) hastily compared notes to find out where Castle Point was. We need not have bothered, because in her excellent speech she gave us a tour d'horizon of her constituency. Those in the Chamber who did not know where Castle Point was, should now be very familiar with it because of the hon. Lady's eloquent speech about her constituency.
It is fair to say that fishing is not the dominant concern in the hon. Lady's constituency—but having achieved a 17 per cent. swing at the election, she is obviously excellent at fishing for votes. If she turns in more performances like this evening's, I am sure that her constituents will reward her with continuing and even more comfortable majorities.
I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the loss of the Sapphire. I have said some deservedly harsh things about two of his Government colleagues because of their


attitude to my constituents in this tragedy—but they would not apply to the Minister, who has a tremendous depth of knowledge of and is sincere about the fishing industry. His remarks were gratefully received and appreciated, and I will relay them to my constituents.
I suspect that the Minister has argued for a decent amount of time for this debate, so it is important that Front and Back Benchers show some restraint, to ensure that everyone who wants to speak gets the opportunity. I shall quickly run through a number of the points made in the debate and then raise two main points of concern, which I am sure the Minister will want to answer.
First, in an intervention in the Minister's speech, I raised the issue of the cod and haddock quotas. There is a clear inconsistency in the scientific treatment of those species. It is vital for the confidence that working fishermen have in scientific advice that the Minister clarifies the matter. From his quite sympathetic response, I take it that he will work to secure some improvement in the North sea haddock quota. A number of devices are available to him in the negotiations, so I send him off to them with the plea that he seriously considers the matter, as there appears to be a virtually inexplicable difference in the treatment of those species in the North sea.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will confirm that there are a number of species in the North sea—whiting—and off the west coast where the Hague preference could be invoked. It is vital that it is invoked. That concession was won for the United Kingdom by the then Irish Foreign Minister, later Taoiseach, Garret Fitzgerald in 1976—if my memory serves me right. It has been extremely useful with a number of species over the years, so it should be well oiled and kept in use. I hope that it will be invoked in the negotiations for the relevant stocks.

Mr. Morley: On the hon. Gentleman's question about North sea haddock and the scientific difference in the treatment of cod and haddock, my information is that the increase in the North sea cod TAC reflects the considerable reduction in cod fishing in recent years. There has been an increase for haddock, and the TAC is now 115,000 tonnes, which is 5,000 tonnes more than the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management suggested. There has also been agreement on an increased quota transfer with Norway for haddock. On the hon. Gentleman's point about adjusting the quota by further adjusting industrial by-catch assumptions, that is something that we will do in the Council. I hope that that answers his points.

Mr. Salmond: I welcome that information, and I will leave the matter to the Minister, given his sympathetic response.
A number of issues have not been mentioned in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has been pursuing the question of the exclusion order that affected the Moray firth fishery. The difficulty appears to be that, although we have always had the principle of the polluter pays, in this case it has become impossible to identify the polluter. As a result, the fishing industry has had great difficulty with its compensations claims.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: This is a matter of deep concern, which must be dealt with by the Government.

The oil and gas industries in the North sea are obviously important as well. However, where fishermen do not have the facility to claim compensation, could the oil companies establish a contingency fund to help? It is an important matter for the fishermen in my area.

Mr. Salmond: I shall relay my hon. Friend's question to the Minister; I am sure that he will answer it when he replies to the debate. I rely on my hon. Friend's ingenuity in these matters to get her point across.
Another point that I wish to raise cropped up earlier in the debate, in the remarkable, amnesiac speech of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). The Conservative party has got a grip on the fact that the Government have been in office for seven months, but it seems to have forgotten the 18 preceding years. The claim is that the UK has been taken to the cleaners over the Atlanto-Scandian herring distribution—and that is correct. However, as I pointed out earlier, it was a Conservative Government who were first taken to the cleaners.
I want to raise with the Minister the obvious point that it was the efforts of the Scottish pelagic fleet—which, on the basis of the Minister's remarks, will be under great pressure—that secured 30 per cent. of the whole European quota of the new stock coming into use. Therefore, to get only 19 per cent. of the quota allocation seems a considerable gap. Perhaps the Minister will use his good offices to argue that point strongly, especially given the pressures on the pelagic fleet.
I could raise a whole range of other issues, but they have already been dealt with by other hon. Members. I want to concentrate on two main issues, one of which arises directly from the Minister's statement. The other relates to the UK presidency, European representation and the way forward.
On the question of MAGP IV, apart from saying, as other Ministers have, that Tory spending plans have left this Government in a straitjacket, the Minister did not quite make an argument that this part of the Opposition could accept—or, I suspect, many of the Government's Back Benchers. The good news for the white fish fleet in the near-achievement of MAGP IV targets is that that should open the door once again to structural funding.
Scotland is at the cutting edge of the UK fishing fleet in its capital mobilisation and renewability, but on average the fleet is 25 years old. It has to compete with fleets across Europe that are much more modern and have had reinvestment in the industry, which many sectors of our fishing fleet have not had for some considerable time. There is a safety issue which should be recognised. Older boats and younger skippers are going to ever deeper waters, and that raises major safety questions.
There is also an economic aspect. I hope that the Minister will at least say that, despite the self-imposed spending straitjacket, the whole question of structural funding, which could be opened up in the Community, and the possibility of a scrap-and-build approach, which has been used successfully in other European countries—something which the Minister mentioned often when he was in opposition—could form part of the strategy for the white fish fleet now that the structural aspect opens the door to reinvestment.

Mr. Morley: I understand exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. We have looked into the issue


of EU rules on structural funds for vessel improvements. Currently, the global MAGP target must be met before the member state is eligible for funds; so, although we have met our target in some segments, until we meet our global target we are not eligible.

Mr. Salmond: I understand that point. It bring me neatly on to the pressure on the pelagic sector. I can understand the encouragement that the Minister takes from the fact that he can lift the threat of a further-days-at-sea policy or other unpopular effort restrictions on the white fish fleet.
However, I have a tiny suspicion that the very small number of pelagic boats will be convenient whipping boys to carry the burden of capacity reduction. If my quick calculations are correct—and they may be wrong—and if I follow the Minister's logic, we are talking about capacity reductions of a third or more over the four years remaining in the MAGP target. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
As has been pointed out, in the North sea, herring quotas are up by 60 per cent. and western mackerel quotas are up by 20 per cent. People who work in the pelagic sector will find it virtually impossible to understand the huge capacity reduction in their fleet if the quota assessment is moving in the opposite direction.
I return to this important point. Considering the nature of the pelagic fleet and of the herring and mackerel species, and the wide fluctuations in those species, is it at all sensible to use the blunt instrument of MAPG targets? Is a more sophisticated approach possible?
If the Minister can find the ingenuity almost to spirit away the target shortfall in relation to the white fish fleet, I am sure that, if he examines how other countries in Europe address the question, he will not find it beyond the bounds of possibility to avoid the severe disablement of our pelagic fleet and its capacity to compete with other pelagic fleets at the cutting edge of the European Union fishing market.
This is very much a Scottish matter. Eighty-five per cent. of pelagic capacity is in the tank ship Scottish fleet. I would not like to think that this Scottish matter was being placed in the firing line because it squares circles elsewhere. Although the number of its boats is limited, the pelagic fleet is hugely important for a growing onshore industry, as processing has replaced the capacity that used to be taken up by klondykers and other processors.
We have at last been building an impressive home pelagic processing industry. If it cannot be guaranteed the supplies—much of the industry uses dedicated supplies—not hundreds of boats and hundreds of jobs in the pelagic catching sector, but thousands of jobs in the pelagic processing sector, might be at risk. I will leave it there, except to say that the pelagic fleet seems to be in the firing line. I hope that a way can be found to avoid the blunt instrument of widespread capacity reductions. On the face of it, if quotas were properly implemented, the fleet's capacity could perhaps be well sustained.
One thing was slightly missing from the Minister's speech. I understand that this debate has to go through the detail of quota assessments, but—this is not too harsh a criticism of the Minister—I was looking for a bit more vision in relation to the direction of Community policy. The Minister and I agree that, in 1992, during the last United Kingdom presidency, a magnificent opportunity

was lost to tackle some of the fundamental underlying issues in the fishing industry. I would hate to think that hopes and opportunities are going to be lost again.
It is not comforting that one of my European colleagues has told me that the United Kingdom representation documents for the presidency apparently contain no mention of fishing as a substantive issue. That does not give me confidence that the Minister has succeeded in persuading his colleagues of the critical nature of the industry and of the fact that, in the run-up to 2002, the presidency should be used to try to shape policy.
I should have liked to hear a bit more about progress on quota hopping. I have spoken to the Minister about the suggestions from the Mallaig and North-West Fishing Association on whether the Marine Safety Agency and safety aspects could be brought into play in relation to quota hoppers.
I should also like to have heard a lot more about coastal states management—the decentralisation of fisheries policy—which many of us believe offers great hope for a much more sensible ordering of our affairs in terms of European fisheries. Other European countries substantially support that approach. I should like to hear a bit more about the Minister's thoughts on the matter.
Figures on the relative weight of the Scottish fleet in the United Kingdom fishing industry show that the Scottish fleet accounts for 67 per cent. of UK landings, 57 per cent. of the UK industry's value, and 46 per cent. of UK vessels over 10 m, against 45 per cent. for England and Wales. By any measurement and definition, the Scottish industry constitutes the bulk of the UK fishing fleet. As a percentage of gross domestic product, it is 14 times more important to the Scottish economy than to the UK economy as a whole. Fishing is a dominating powerhouse industry in Scotland, and should be viewed as such.
Tomorrow, we expect the publication of the devolution Bill. Press leaks tell us that the role that was envisaged for the Scottish Parliament within a European context is to be played down, diminished, or even removed entirely from the Bill. I therefore hope that a Scottish colleague will whisper in the Minister's ear and give me some reassurance that, within the context of the European negotiations, the new Scottish Parliament will above all have a significant, continuing and entrenched role in fishing policy. Despite the individual ability of the Minister with responsibility for fisheries, it is vital for Scotland's fishing communities that they are represented by the Scottish Parliament, so that they are never again subjected to the disarray and humiliation which has been their lot over the past 18 years.

Mrs. Joan Humble: As one new Member to another, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her maiden speech. We have both attended virtually every meeting in the House on the fishing industry, adding to our local knowledge by understanding some of the larger complexities. I look forward to attending many more meetings with her.
I congratulate the Government on the progress made so far, and I welcome the Minister's speech. I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate,


which is vital for my constituents in Fleetwood. It is especially vital that the Government negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen.
I should like to outline why the debate is important for my constituents. Fleetwood bounced back from the loss of its distant water grounds. During the mid to late 1980s, it had a fleet of about 60 inshore and home water trawlers, which made a significant contribution to the landings at the port and utilised many local services.
Unfortunately, in the early 1990s, vessels were sold or decommissioned, or the owners of the vessels went into receivership. Now, there are fewer than 30 trawlers and a further eight have been the subject of successful decommissioning bids in the current round. Of those, three have already been decommissioned. Further contraction of the indigenous fleet will threaten the entire sector at Fleetwood. We are at the "critical mass" level of activity. That is why it is vital for my constituents that the Government negotiate a fair deal for them and ensure that the industry continues.
The issue of the availability of quota to the local fish producers organisation is vital. Against a background of losses of quota in recent years, it is working hard to make the most of the available quota. It is essential, therefore, that the track record attaching to decommissioned vessels at the Fleetwood PO is not lost to the organisation. It is hoped that the recently introduced facility of effectively trading in track record will not further reduce the quota available to the PO. However, I am disturbed to find that that appears to be happening already.
Some 40 per cent. of our entitlement to Dover sole has been purchased by an entrepreneur, who is interested not in the boats, but in their licence entitlement. He has taken the fish away from Fleetwood, although he lives in my constituency. He has transferred management of the fish to a producer organisation that is noted for acting for Dutch quota hoppers. I have already raised my concerns about the impact of the loss of track record with the Minister, and I am sure that he will take them into account in any future decommissioning schemes.
All that makes the new year allocation of quota a major concern for my constituents. Fleetwood has a low quota allocation. I understand that further reductions in cod, whiting and saithe quotas are proposed for area VI, with some increase in the haddock quota, and that reductions are proposed in whiting and sole quotas for area VIIa, with a welcome increase in haddock and plaice quotas. While there are clearly some concerns about reductions in some of the allocations, my fishermen welcome increases elsewhere.
Without sufficient landings, we will not sustain the port's various businesses. I make no apologies for my special pleading for Fleetwood. Other hon. Members can argue for their areas, but I am arguing for the fishermen of Fleetwood and the industries connected with their landings.
I believe that there are reasons for allocating additional quota to a port such as Fleetwood to prevent the total collapse of the fishing sector. One means of achieving that is being developed by my local fish forum. It concerns the quota released by vessels being broken up under the decommissioning scheme. Instead of being sold on or reallocated to POs on a pro rata basis, which in some

cases means only a few extra cases of fish to each port, it would become the subject of a socio-economic bid, just as cash resources are bid for under the single regeneration budget or city challenge.
I hope that the Minister will consider a variety of ways to ensure sustainable fisheries management and effective enforcement and that he will acknowledge the special place of communities such as Fleetwood.
I welcome the Minister's saying that he is considering the possibility of designated ports. The issue has not yet been raised in the debate. I know that some of the catchers in Fleetwood object to the proposals for designated ports; nevertheless, the Fleetwood fish forum and my local authority—Wyre borough council—fully support the idea, to protect the future of the port and to develop far more effective enforcement measures.
The system would also make a significant contribution to the emerging philosophy of the regional management of fisheries, with designated ports becoming regional hubs, and their port assets and shore-based businesses being utilised more effectively. Certainly, the fish dock at Fleetwood is a designated facility, used exclusively by fishing vessels. That is not the case in all ports. I look forward to hearing more details of the Government's proposals in the new year.
Finally, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look positively at a variety of options available to halt the decline in my local fishing industry, especially given the previous Government's appalling record. Let us hope that we arrive at a solution while ports such as Fleetwood still have a fishing industry to benefit from them.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on a first-rate speech. It was first rate because it lasted six minutes, not 30. In my experience, when an hon. Member makes a short speech, people listen. I hope to follow the hon. Lady's example.
Reference has been made to the Hague preference, which is the reason why the Conservative Benches are so empty. The leader of the Conservative party is holding his pre-nuptial party, which explains why this side of the House is so deserted. Otherwise, it would be crammed with hon. Members wanting to speak about fish. I hope that it explains why I am going to make a very short speech, which is not customary, and why I shall not be here to hear the winding-up speeches. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister understand that.
Brixham is in my constituency, which includes the coastline from Paignton to just outside Thurlestone. About 3,000 to 4,000 of my constituents are employed in the fishing industry. Brixham, which is the principal port, is the second largest fishing port in England and Wales. Fishing is a vocation, rather like being a Member of Parliament but a great deal more dangerous. I pay tribute to the courage of the fishermen. They have a tough way of life, especially in this sort of weather, but they still bring us fresh fish every day.
The United Kingdom fleet lands £637 million worth of fish each year. About £100 million of this is taken up by quota hoppers. We must get the facts straight. About 20 per cent. of the fish landed in Great Britain goes to another nation, or several nations, and is lost to


UK fishing communities. About £95 million worth of fish is landed in Devon and Cornwall every year, but a high percentage of that—about 40 per cent.—goes to Spanish or Dutch quota hoppers. The boats are crewed by other Europeans, and the profits go to foreigners.
The real question is whether a country's birthright should be a negotiable asset. Quota hopping breaks our historic and traditional right as a seafaring nation to harvest fish in our own waters. However, it is not only the British fishing industry which is under threat, because the French industry is also being threatened. If the Spanish continue to be allowed to buy the quota of other countries, we will end up with a European fleet made up exclusively of Spanish boats. That strikes me as a major problem. It was not solved by the previous Government, but it provides an opportunity for the Minister to win his spurs if he can deal with it.
The main issue for the Government is how we get back our quota. Can some countries continue to take the quota of other countries? Will a quota be a saleable commodity? I understand that this is not the case with the milk quota and that each country can use only its own quota. Why then can one country buy another country's fish quota?

Mr. Morley: It was a policy supported by the previous Government who were keen on the tradeability of quotas.

Mr. Steen: Well, we have to put it right now. Quotas should not be tradeable; if they are tradeable, the Government should buy ours back. The Government may argue that British fishermen sold their quota in the first place, so why should public money be used to buy it back? The simple answer is because our fish stocks are a vital national asset. In many areas of the country, fishing plays a crucial part in the local economy and provides much local employment. In addition, the quota should be inalienable. When we were in government, we recognised the complexities of the problem. Even if we got it wrong at the outset, we realised in the end that we had to get it right.
The former Prime Minister rightly said that he would not complete the Amsterdam treaty without solving the quota hopping mess, but the new Government seem to have been hoodwinked into thinking that they have solved the problem. They have not. In fact, the Europeans—I use a mixed metaphor—have sold us a pup. The deal negotiated at Amsterdam brings with it no material benefit to the UK fishing industry. Even if it did, President Santer says that it is not enforceable.
As I understand it, the Government have negotiated a deal whereby vessels must land at least 50 per cent. of their catch in their country of registration, or visit that country at least eight times a year for eight hours. If I am wrong, I should be pleased to be corrected.

Mr. Morley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The visiting qualifications are the present qualifications for licences. Our proposals cover 50 per cent. of the catch, 50 per cent. of the crew or 50 per cent. of the trips starting from a UK port.

Mr. Steen: That is quite helpful, but let us analyse those three points. The first is that 50 per cent. of fishing trips emanate from British ports. That simply involves a vessel from a Spanish port steaming up the channel,

arriving at Brixham, and starting its log from there. It then leaves Brixham, returns and goes back to Spain. That may not be practical, but it is possible.
The next option relates to 50 per cent. of the catch being landed at a UK port. This is the option that concerns the fishermen of Brixham. If 50 per cent. of the catch has to be landed at Brixham, the fish will be loaded onto a 44-tonne refrigerated lorry on the docks without even reaching the local auction house. The lorry will then head for Spain, and the catch will in no way have benefited the people of Devon. Only the oil companies will gain. Shell and BP shareholders might be fortunate and benefit from those lorries being filled with fuel, but the public will not benefit. There will also be problems with the ozone layer because of the wretched lorries pouring out diesel fumes on their way to Spain. In other words, no one in the UK port will benefit. There will be more bureaucracy but no extra fish.
Although I want to keep my remarks short, I should like to explore one other issue: flags of convenience that are owned by the Spanish. Does the Minister thinks that the 50 per cent. rule will bring any benefit to people in British ports? I cannot understand how it will create any extra employment. There will not be any extra money. All that will happen is that the fish will not swim, but will be driven, to Spain. I cannot readily understand how our fishermen will benefit from that. Ministers talk about energy conservation, yet they sign up to an agreement that will increase the number of diesel-guzzling lorries loaded with fish—pounding through the English countryside, over the channel and down to Spain.
Fishermen also feel let down about decommissioning. I gather that the Government allocated £53 million, over five years, to ease the problems of fleet reduction. Of that, £36.4 million has been spent and a further £14.3 million has been allocated—leaving a £2.3 million shortfall. Has that money gone to Guernsey or been lost somewhere? Perhaps the Minister can explain what has happened to it.
The Minister will have to spell out—I know that he has to do an awful lot of spelling out in his reply, because every hon. Member has asked him to say something—the benefits of his negotiations at Amsterdam to the ports and people of the south-west. I am not being difficult with him or making a political point, but I cannot discern a benefit.
Perhaps there has been a secret negotiation in which the Minister has done a deal with the other European countries. We do not know about the deal, which is why we are puzzled about it and why the benefit to fishermen and to our ports is not readily seen. Perhaps that is also why there have been so many speeches in the debate about quota hopping. Given his interest in the subject, perhaps he will explain the situation to the House. I will read his explanation in tomorrow's Hansard, because he will excuse me if I go off to the prenuptials. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to hear the explanation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. will soon have to call for the Front-Bench replies to the debate, and can therefore call only four more Back Benchers to speak. I can do that only if hon. Members take no more than eight minutes apiece to speak. I cannot rule on the matter and am in the hands of the House, but I give that advice.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I will try to stick to your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Since May, I have noticed that one of the features of debates in the House is how often it has become absolutely clear that the new Government have received a terrible inheritance from the previous Government. There are few worse examples of that inheritance than the common fisheries policy, which was established many years ago with the aim of conserving fishing. This debate and debates on the policy in previous years have shown that that principal aim has not been achieved. Moreover, not only fishermen but the public feel that there is something wrong with a policy that requires dead fish to be thrown back into the sea.
The Conservative Government signed up to the common fisheries policy, and they were in power during its 10-year review. They also held the European Union presidency at the end of 1992, and failed to address the quota-hopping issue, although everyone had known since 1991 that it was a problem.
The Government have also inherited the legacy of the huge and unrealistic expectations raised among fishermen because of the anti-European froth spouted by the Conservatives in the months leading up to the general election. I believe that fishermen were used and exploited by the anti-European brigade—especially by the Maastricht rebels—for their own ends. The people of Lowestoft will remember the sight of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) clambering over trawlers in the port. They had not previously realised that she had such an interest in fishing—although I noticed that she sat through part of today's debate.
Everyone is now clear that those expectations would always be impossible to fulfil, unless we withdrew completely from the European Union. Even in this debate, however, I have heard hon. Members talking about "going to the line" and "pushing it to the limit". We saw what happened on beef. A policy of non-co-operation in Europe achieved only the creation of the acronym PONCE—which is also what the Europeans called Ministers who went to Europe on behalf of the previous Government, espousing their policy.
This Government have achieved more in a few months than the Tories achieved in years. The economic link established by the Government to deal with quota hopping is beginning to work. I mentioned earlier that there has already been an instance in Lowestoft in which a quota hopper has had to take on two British fishermen to fulfil requirements. It is true that those fishermen were recruited from a Lowestoft trawler company, but there are plenty of unemployed fishermen in Lowestoft to take their place. Surely that is the point of the economic link—to create jobs, livelihoods and prosperity for British fishermen.
Happily, since those PONCE days, things are settling down, and sensible discussions and meetings are taking place. In July, I attended a meeting in Lowestoft between East Anglian fishermen and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Fishermen said that they were impressed by him, because he was willing to listen and he showed commitment and understanding and had great knowledge of and expertise in the fishing industry. Their conclusion—which was published in the press—was that he was a man they could do business with.
Since the general election, the story for fishing in Lowestoft has been quite a good one, in relative terms. The fishermen of Lowestoft felt that there were more plaice out in the North sea than the scientists had calculated. Again in his listening mode, the Minister authorised the scientists to recheck the situation. Consequently, the plaice quota was increased from 80,000 tonnes to 91,000 tonnes. Although that figure has had to be reduced in the recent negotiations, the new plaice quota for next year is 87,000 tonnes, which is still well above the 80,000 figure that the scientists had originally proposed.
The huge variation in scientific observations is creating a problem. It is all very well to say at the beginning of the year that the quota should be set at a certain amount, and then to raise it part of the way through the year, but jobs will have been lost and livelihoods will have been wrecked in the meanwhile. I can therefore understand why fishermen call for greater consistency from scientists, and why they question some of their findings.
One matter on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is that we have to get scientists and fishermen together on agreeing what stocks are out there. An agreement will not be easy, but we will have to make a serious attempt at reaching one. If we do so, politicians will no longer be in the middle. As a local politician, the Minister is in the middle. One hears both from one's scientists and from one's fishermen. One cannot say that either group is not telling the truth, but which group does one believe? It is a very difficult situation.
Lowestoft is concerned primarily with plaice, so the news for next year is good. However, one realises—with today's announcement on MAGP IV—that there are difficult times beyond that. Although our small boat fleet will not be affected under MAGP IV, there will have to be a significant reduction in the beam trawler effort. That reduction, although not the nightmare previously feared, will be very difficult.
There are only 11 beam trawlers left in Lowestoft, and everyone feels that we need those 11 trawlers to sustain the Lowestoft fish market. Without the fish market, we cannot really have a fishing industry in Lowestoft. Pardon the pun, but the guts of the industry are in that market. I therefore request that Lowestoft may have serious talks with the Minister to decide what can be done to ensure that, in implementing MAGP IV, the Lowestoft fish market will be sustained.
We are stuck with MAGP IV, which is a consequence of the common fisheries policy. It behoves us all, however, to look ahead in deciding how we can reform the policy. I support what hon. Members have said this evening about the need for more localised regional management. That must be the way forward. Another way is for the Government to sit down and talk to the industry sensibly, with no froth and fire, and to give fishermen a stake in their industry. We have used the term stakeholding in many other contexts; fishermen have an interest in conservation and it is important to give them that opportunity.
The new Government have begun to establish a better relationship with the fishing industry. It is important that we work together in a responsive and responsible way to tackle the problems that lie ahead if we are radically to reform the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Christopher Gill: In view of the advice that you gave the House a moment or two ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall resist the temptation to argue with the contentious remarks made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) about my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and, presumably, about myself and my other hon. Friends.
What we achieved by showing a particular interest in the fishing industry was to put that industry firmly on the political agenda where it had not been before. Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House at the beginning of the previous Parliament, he would have seen that there was a relatively low attendance at fishing debates, but, by the end of the Parliament, many right hon. and hon. Members showed a tremendously increased interest in fishing. It is no exaggeration to say that it was the action of the so-called rebels which put the fishing industry on the political agenda.
I agree with the hon. Member for Waveney about conservation. So much is said to justify the common fisheries policy in terms of what it does to conserve fish stocks, but, as the Minister will know, I have serious concerns about the proposals to reduce the minimum landing size of fish. I know that the fishing industry shares those concerns because fishermen are responsible people who want to look after the long-term interests of their industry. I believe that the British public would share those concerns if those aspects of the common fisheries policy, to which I shall refer in a moment, were more widely known.
It is a complete mystery to me why, when there are so many animal welfare lobbies showing interest in wildlife and animals, no public attention has been drawn to the fact that we are wasting a huge amount of resources by discarding perfectly saleable fish dead into the sea. The proposals that we are considering contain measures to reduce the minimum landing size of fish. That means that, quite legally, fishermen will be catching fish that will not have had an opportunity to breed; that is absolutely appalling.
I know that the Minister is constrained by the fact that we have to get agreement in Europe to any change. The hon. Member for Waveney should recognise that. The Minister talked about clamping down on black fish. That will lead to greater tonnages of discard and will add to the total loss of fish. It seems extraordinary that the fishing industry culls the young stock whereas in the case of animals, stock that have come to their end of their useful life, are old and have lost value are culled.
The Minister will not be surprised when I say that I wish to pursue the arguments raised in the fisheries debates on 9 and 23 July for, as he has conceded, I am nothing if not consistent. He might also recognise another trait—that of persistence. I should like him to know that I intend to persist in my endeavours to establish the truth. Indeed, if successive Ministers had told the truth over the past 25 years, it is questionable whether we would be in our current position.
The reason why the truth about fisheries is a truth that dare not speak its name is that had the British people been told the truth, they would never have voted to remain in the EEC in 1975. Had they been told that, as from 1 January 2003, fishing vessels of all member states of the EU would be able to fish right up to our beaches—or

technically speaking, the base line—that there would be no such thing as a British fishing fleet, and that all the fish in the seas around the British Isles would belong to the EU, there would have been uproar.
For 25 years, the House and the people of Britain—not least the fishermen—have been fed a diet of half-truths, deceptions and downright lies. Article 38 of the treaty of Rome spoke only of a common market in agriculture and fisheries products, but, almost by sleight of hand, subsequent treaties have ensured that fisheries are now part of the acquis communautaire.
Which Minister drew the attention of the House to the clause in the Maastricht treaty which joined fisheries to agriculture and which Minister flagged up the inclusion of the EU fisheries permit system in the treaties of accession for Austria, Finland and Sweden? If the basic fisheries regulation continues indefinitely, as Ministers claim, why did they feel it necessary to include a permit system as a treaty obligation, given that article 4—which sets out the permit system—is already part of the basic regulation?
It is now clear that there will be no reform of the CFP. I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is paying attention. It was confirmed by Mr. John Farnell, director of Directorates-General XIV in his address to the Greenwich Forum on 16 October. In his reply to me in the House on 12 November, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated that the Government now accept that reform is out of the question. All that will happen on that front, as the Minister himself admitted on 23 July, is that
the Commission has to produce a report by 31 December 2001"—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol.298, c.906.]
It is committed not to a reform, but simply to a report. That is in accordance with article 14.2 of the basic regulation 3760/92/EEC which states:
the Commission must produce a report on Community fisheries by the end of 2002, dealing in particular with the economic and social situation of coastal regions, the state of the fisheries resources and their expected development, and the implementation of the basic Regulation.
So there we have it—the implementation of the basic regulation.
That is not what the Labour party was saying prior to the general election. Its election manifesto said:
We will seek a thorough overhaul of the Common Fisheries Policy to conserve our fish stocks in the long-term interests of the UK fishing industry".
Nor is it what Labour MEPs are saying. They have voted by an overwhelming majority to approve the Carmen Fraga Estevez report which states, among other things, that
the decisions adopted by the Council throughout the 1970s on the creation of a common fisheries policy asserted the principle of freedom of access to Community fishing grounds.
Secondly, it states that
in the absence of a decision by the Council, the principle of equal access will apply automatically as from 1 January 2003 … if a fresh derogation is considered necessary, it will have to comply with Article 235 of the Treaty which requires unanimity within the Council.
Thirdly, the report states quite correctly that
exemptions from the general principle will be repealed automatically as from the year 2002, when the current fisheries policy expires unless otherwise decided (in which case unanimity is required within the Council).


For the benefit of the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Waveney, those are the facts, the realities and the constraints within which our Ministers have to operate. More to the point, the Carmen Fraga Estevez reports continues:
as we have repeatedly stressed throughout this introduction, the current common fisheries policy in fact constitutes a derogation from the principle of freedom of access, and this derogation will expire in 2002.
Will the Minister recognise that what I am saying, what the Commission is saying, what the Carmen Fraga Estevez report is saying, what his own Members of the European Parliament are saying and what Save Britain's Fish has been saying for a long time is the truth? Personally, quite apart from the fact that it seems improbable that all those people have reached the wrong conclusion, I have no argument with what they are saying. However, I take exception to the craven refusal of successive British Governments to tell the truth.
For example, the new Labour Government, although at last conceding that article 6 of regulation 3760/92 is a derogation, apparently refuse to accept that the regulation is itself a derogation. By dint of its being a derogation, it will not continue beyond 2002 without further agreement. Will the Minister tell the House whether he can produce any documentary evidence that regulation 3760/92 will continue beyond 2002? In the absence of such evidence, it is a matter of fact that the regulation, including article 6, will have to be renegotiated. The question then is what the British Government will give in exchange for Spain's acquiesence. I invite the Minister to assure the House that the bargaining counter will not be the rock of Gibraltar.
The Government deny that, post-2002, we shall have, in effect, a single European fishing fleet, catching European fish in European waters. They do not understand that, as a result of the Maastricht treaty and the treaties of accession, the principle of equal access without discrimination is enshrined in Community law. It is not negotiable. Prior to those treaties, one could have argued that the CFP was open to renegotiation because its basis was in regulation. Now that it is firmly established as part of the acquis, that option no longer exists.
Which of the fisheries Front-Bench spokesmen participating in this debate will be the first to look British fishermen in the eye and admit the mistakes of the past? Will it be the fisheries Minister himself or will it be my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)? It may be of some assistance to them in determining their answer to bear in mind the old saying, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time". I accept that politicians do not like admitting mistakes and least of all having to apologise, but I assure the House that, on this issue, where a vital national interest is at stake, they will be hounded until they do.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is wonderful to see so many Labour Members representing fishing ports and speaking up eloquently and articulately in defence of their local fishing industries—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler),

who made her maiden speech and raised another voice for the fishing industry. It is even more exciting after 18 years to see in this annual December debate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) as the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I congratulate him on having made himself such a master of the industry so quickly and on winning its respect and support in the way he has.
I do not want to say anything about total allowable catches because there is not much time. I want to make only two points. First, the cod quota, especially in the North sea, is up due to huge juvenile stocks. What proposals does the Minister have to conserve and protect those juvenile stocks so that they can grow into marketable fish? Secondly, will the Minister put off setting an allocation for horse mackerel? The record is incomplete and inadequate and it would be premature to do so.
On quotas, I shall make only two points. First, there is a great need to smooth out allocations, because scientific advice tends to work like a switch-back, a roller-coaster, amplifying trends. It is good at describing historical record but bad at predicting and dealing year by year on a single-species basis. We therefore need to smooth out fluctuations. I suggest adjustments of no more than 10 per cent. up or down. The economic viability of the industry and the impact on communities has to be taken into account as well as conservation. We need to take account of and do more to control discards. It is a simple fact of life that when quotas go down, discards go up, especially in mixed fishing, where there is an horrendous problem of discards. There are all sorts of ways of attempting to deal with such problems. The Canadians are making effective use of square-mesh panels, which gives them more selectivity in catching. We must approach the issue through mixed quotas. All such ways need to be considered because discards are becoming quite a serious problem.
Secondly, it is good to know that now that the multi-annual guidance programme IV has been in force for about a year we have some details of what it involves. It is good to know that there will be no reduction in the demersal fleet, although I must warn the Minister that reductions in the pelagic fleet and beam trawlers will be quite substantial and have a serious effect on the industry—too big to be handled on the basis of co-operative concession, particularly since many involved are not quota hoppers and will not give up just because the British Minister pleads with them to do so.
MAPG IV is not simple, clear and transparent. It is opaque because different countries use different methods to reach the target. It will be very difficult to compare and contrast who succeeds in reaching the targets, yet a good deal depends on it—allocations from Europe, for instance.
I thought that it was ominous when the Minister mentioned the strict financial review that is taking place. Decommissioning money will be necessary; there is no doubt about it. If we are to reduce effort, there is no other effective way of doing so. We cannot go back to the days-at-sea approach. Many of us, especially my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, have held too many verbal hostages to fortune over days-at-sea limitations. The only alternative, therefore, is money. That means money to modernise the fleet. Our fleet is very old in comparison with others, which have had European money to


modemise. The average age of our fishing vessels is 25 years, in total contrast with fishing industries in other countries.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on the need to maintain industry in ports such as theirs and mine at a critical mass which will sustain facilities and prevent the industry imploding. Most of the decommissioning in the previous round—in fact, 80 per cent. of it—was of English vessels. That is reducing our fleet to such a level that there has to be some means of allowing the producer organisation to purchase quota and track record in order to keep the industry local. Highlands and islands finance in Scotland has been a key element in allowing the purchase of quotas, so why cannot the regional development agencies that we are setting up allocate money through the producer organisation to keep the industry viable locally? There must be some financial basis for allocations.
I express only disappointment at the proposals on quota hoppers. While it is important to do something, what is proposed will be an annoyance to sections of the English industry without closing the door, penalising or controlling quota hoppers.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has worked hard to give the industry a stable prospect and a base for expansion and development, and I congratulate him on that. He has taken that purpose very seriously. However, we also committed ourselves in the manifesto to a fundamental review of the common fisheries policy. The presidency offers great opportunities. I hope that my hon. Friend will not merely use it to be an impartial defender of other people's interests or to concentrate on environmental matters, which are so close to his heart. It is right to deal with drift nets, and so on—I am absolutely 100 per cent. with him on that—but to concentrate on environmental matters and ignore the national interest would be dangerous.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that there can be no prospect of a fishing industry for this country inside the CFP. I want to pull out, but there is an intermediate, transitional stage. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister should work to move the CFP away from equal access to one of a common resource, under greater national control and influence, allowing Europe—perhaps—to set measures of the lowest common denominator but giving coastal states more control over their own catches and waters, with a more focused control rather than the broad, sweeping, simple, lowest common denominator measures that Europe goes in for.
The common fisheries policy is the worst fishing policy in the world because it is not effectively enforced, it pits fishermen against each other in a competition to decimate stocks, and there is no incentive to conserve stocks. Any fisherman who adopts practical conservation measures immediately sees the fish looted and pillaged by fishermen from other countries. Fishermen are also not stakeholders in the policy, which is the only way that we shall see effective conservation in the industry.
It was nice of my hon. Friend the Minister to make jokes about policy no longer being dictated by Euro-sceptic rumps. I did not take it personally, even though I offer more Euro-scepticism and more rump than most of the Tories do. However, the Minister's comment

is not an effective debating point. The fishing industry has been weakened because it has been sacrificed so often and for so long to Euro-enthusiasm.
To obtain concessions in other areas, we have made concessions on fishing because it is not a politically important or powerful industry. That must stop. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend will work to stop it, because he takes the interests of the industry seriously. We must assert the national interest because our interest is in conserving our stocks and ensuring that we have a viable industry to hand on to future generations.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: My constituency contains the historic ports of Hastings and Rye, where the fishing industry in recent years has experienced, in common with those elsewhere, a decline in its fortunes. Perhaps worse still, it has felt that the Government have not been listening. It is probably true to say that my very presence in the House is connected with the wrath felt by the fishing community towards the previous Government. It may also be connected with the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to my constituency during the election campaign. The leader of the Liberal Democrats also visited, but my hon. Friend must have had more effect.
Because of the limits on time, I shall immediately raise the single issue that most affects my constituents. The resolution refers to
the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.
I wish to relate that point to area VII, which covers my constituency. My constituents fish from vessels under 10 m and are limited to the locality of their port. With those smaller vessels, the quota for the area is allocated to the area and not to the boats. Therefore, the fish that the boats may take is dependent on the total number of similar small craft fishing in the area.
Two issues have arisen in the past few years that have caused my constituents some dismay and concern. First, fishermen from other areas around the United Kingdom are taking advantage of decommissioning grants, destroying their larger boats, purchasing 10 m licences—pocketing the difference on the way—and re-entering the industry, often in area VII, to take a share of that area's limited resources. Secondly, others have sold their licences for larger vessels and physically shortened their boats to less than 10 m. They are also coming to area VII and depleting still further the fish available to my constituents, who have historically fished there. I am told that at least eight boats from those two categories have entered the area in the past few months.
Within the past three years, the number of vessels sharing the spoils in area VII has virtually doubled. I am delighted that the overall quota remains the same for the coming year, but, with double the number of vessels, simple arithmetic shows that the catch for each vessel is effectively halved. In short, we have our own home-grown quota hopping, which is unfair and which, if allowed to go unchallenged, will risk the stability of the industry and communities such as those of the ports of Hastings and Rye.
There is a simple solution to the problem. If craft under 10 m were licensed to a particular area—to area VII in the case of Hastings and Rye fishermen—the number of


area licences could be limited to those boats currently fishing in the area. If UK licences were exchanged for area licences, their numbers could be limited.
Historically, small ports such as Hastings and Rye have rationed their catch to ensure their long-term employment. This year, regrettably, the quota was exhausted this week because of the practices that I have mentioned. If yet more vessels move into the area, next year's Christmas break for my constituents will come even earlier and will be a holiday without pay.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done so much in his short time in office to benefit the constituents to whom I have referred, to visit my fishing constituents. They would make him very welcome and thank him for what he has done, but they would also be able to describe their concerns much more graphically.

Dr. Liam Fox: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), to the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will not think that I am presumptuous if I say that he is there not before time. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her maiden speech. I understand that she is a sculptor in her spare time and she used her artistic powers verbally to paint a vivid picture of her constituency. I look forward to further speeches from her.
I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who showed their usual expertise in this debate. I understand that they have a different Hague preference from some of us in the Chamber tonight and are not able to be present.
The Minister began with the now customary new Labour language about the new era that has been ushered in. He told us that the unrealistic expectations and policies of the Conservatives, designed for the Euro-sceptics, had been replaced by the lush landscape of harmonious relationships with the European Union. I paraphrase, but I wish him well when he goes to the Council because he will learn from experience.
I wish to put the record straight on what the previous Government proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made it clear that we intended to achieve a resolution to quota hopping or the Amsterdam process would not have been concluded. The Minister may be right to say that we were outnumbered 14 to one and that we might not have made much progress, but we had been in that situation before. We will never now know whether we would have achieved a settlement on that basis, because the present Government bottled out—or adopted different tactics, depending on which side of the Chamber we sit.
Where have we got as a result of the Government's new communautaire approach? The beef ban is still unaltered, because it is simply a protectionist trade measure; the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is outnumbered 14 to one and unable to manoeuvre; and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have had to eat humble pie over Euro X. The Government are learning from bitter experience what most previous Governments have learnt in the various European Council meetings.
The Minister gave us one or two answers on money issues, which followed the usual pattern that we have come to expect from Ministers recently. They say that they have a comprehensive spending review in train but that they have to follow the limits set by their predecessors. They say not a word about the £6 billion more in the Government coffers than the Red Book anticipated. The Government have far more manoeuvrability on spending than they tell their Back Benchers. However, the Minister added a few worrying comments. On the comprehensive spending review, he said that he would examine ways in which the industry could help to pay for any future decommissioning. That is worrying. He also mentioned the two-year implementation of the Conservative spending limits, but MAGP IV runs beyond the end of that two years. What are we to expect? Have we been promised anything or have we simply to hope for the best?
We need full industry involvement in the MAGP IV discussions. Sadly, the Scottish fishermen had to wait three months for a meeting to discuss it with a Minister. I agree with them that no conclusive view on the implementation of MAGP IV should be adopted, through any form of effort limitation scheme, unless there is full consultation with the industry.
We welcome the increase in the TAC for cod and haddock to 140,000 tonnes. A banking element is included, and the agreement of the industry is testament to the seriousness of the desire for conservation to succeed. However, the question of linked fishing remains. Notwithstanding the Minister's intervention earlier, I do not believe that there is any logic in increasing the cod TAC but not the haddock TAC. There has been a failure to achieve a TAC in the UK quota that reflects the abundance of fish present in the sea. Scientists have always told us that haddock and cod should be taken in common to protect cod, and I see no justification for breaking that link now. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out—following an intervention of mine—cod is still designated outside the safe biological limits, but haddock is inside. This shows a lack of concern in negotiations for a particular Scottish interest.
There seems to be a lack of will in making decisions, and I wish to refer in this regard to scientific advice. Ministers must decide and not just react. Scientists are advisers, not gods. They are not infallible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, it would make a great deal of sense—as the hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) agreed—to set up a joint council of fishermen and scientists; a standing committee to give information on fish stocks. There is a need to come to common agreement with common information, as this would help the Government and the industry. I hope that the Government will take the suggestion seriously, in the constructive spirit in which it is meant.
At present, we are dealing with MAGP IV and the figures suggest that there will be massive reductions, when we are told that the opposite is taking place. We must work on better scientific information than we have at present, and there is room for consensus on this.
I wish to refer briefly to whiting. I am pleased that the Government will discuss the industrial by-catch figure, hopefully for whiting and haddock. The 20 per cent. cut in the TAC for whiting is confusing, as whiting is also


inside the safe biological limits. Why is that reduction being made? The UK has an entitlement, under the Hague preference agreement, to 29,000 tonnes of North sea whiting. This must be negotiated in the Council. It is what we are due; it is not charity. The court will shortly make it clear that it is legal and proper. We know that, the industry knows that and our European partners and competitors know that. The Government have a duty to fight for what is due to the United Kingdom. That is particularly important in the west of Scotland.
There are concerns about the scientific advice, and the 40 per cent. reduction in the TAC for whiting cannot be absorbed in one go. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. He must know that the TAC for next year will be 11 tonnes over the previous calculation, and this must be the Government's minimum objective. I expect an explicit commitment from the Minister who replies to the debate. Moreover, the current UK quota is exclusive of the Hague preference, and this again must be negotiated in at the Council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde mentioned saithe in the west of Scotland. Some 1,500 tonnes have been guaranteed for the UK by the Hague preference in 1997. This also must be retained. I am pleased—along with the industry and other hon. Members—in terms of pelagic fisheries, the stock recovery and the increased TAC. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why Norway has achieved a permanent share of 29 per cent., when those in the know in the industry expected and suggested a lower Norwegian share. There is also a special concern that the TAC on horse mackerel should be allocated among member states in 1998. As the Minister well knows—he is familiar with the issue—the concern centres on the doubts about correct species identification.
One of the other issues raised in the debate was the working time directive, from which sea fishing is exempt. However, this is a clear case of creeping competence by the EU. The fact that it was brought in, disgracefully, under health and safety—which we opposed—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said, does not reduce the validity of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. The social chapter will simply be more of the same, but in other areas.
Share fishermen are regarded in the United Kingdom as self employed. The Government must protect them from the directive. We cannot have continuing interference from Europe in areas in which it has no business. During previous negotiations, we believed, in good faith, that these fishermen would remain exempt. It is no use these measures being introduced by the back door.
I turn now to quota hopping. The Minister referred to continuing discussions, which confused one or two of us who thought that we had a deal. The Prime Minister said on 18 June:
We also made real progress in Amsterdam … We secured an agreement … we are entitled to put into law a clear economic link between boats using our quotas and Britain. Economic benefits from boats flying the British flag should go to British ports, for example through a proviso that 50 per cent. of a boat's catch should be landed locally. We will, with all possible speed, introduce new licence conditions to reflect that … those agreements will mean a major disincentive to quota hoppers, present and future. Commission agreement to the new measures means that their vulnerability to legal challenge—a perennial problem hitherto—should be greatly reduced."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 315.]
The deal is no more than an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and Jacques Santer. It says that 50 per cent. of fish caught in the United Kingdom quota will

have to be landed at British ports, and that fishermen landing their catch abroad will not be able to escape the controls that British fishermen are subject to. It is barely more than a clarification of the current procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said in the same debate that
the Spanish have already poured scorn on his claims to have solved quota hopping."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 318.]
The truth, as the Government know, is that if they try to restrict the movements of existing quota hoppers, they will easily be defeated in the European Court. Therefore, Labour's deal, whereby quota hoppers will be made to land part of their catch in the United Kingdom, may be successfully challenged by the Spanish or Dutch fishermen currently fishing the UK quota. In any event, it does nothing to prevent the future purchase of British quota by overseas fishermen. It does not remove quota hoppers from the UK register; nor will it do anything to change the situation whereby part of the British quota is being caught by, and for the benefit of, overseas fishermen.
Finally, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about the Government's plans to be published tomorrow—but leaked yesterday—for devolution. At the moment, Scottish Office Ministers can lead for the United Kingdom at the Council. The former hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, Raymond Robertson, did so during the general election campaign. I understand that the Bill will say nothing about that, because it will not be acceptable to many Government Back Benchers—as it will not be acceptable to the Opposition—to have a Minister leading for the United Kingdom who is not answerable to the House of Commons. As a result of the proposals, an industry that is vital to Scotland will lose a powerful voice, and tomorrow we will ask the pertinent questions.
We wait with bated breath—if I may use that pun—for the three priorities of the presidency and the place that fishing will have among them. Government is not about mood music, it is about results. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are learning that charm is a limited currency in Europe. We do not blame them for trying to be charming—others have tried—but they must fight their corner.
The simple truth is that we in the House of Commons can huff and puff, consider and debate and make party points all we like, but control over fishing no longer rests here. The meaningful debate must begin from this point. The Government claimed that they wanted a full-scale overhaul of the common fisheries policy. Well, we are waiting.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): It is a pleasure for me to wind up the debate, which has ranged widely and—for the most part—constructively across many aspects of fisheries policy. This is my first opportunity as a Scottish Office Minister to speak on this subject—or, indeed, any other—and I am grateful for the kind words of welcome from various hon. Members.
Mine is not the only maiden. We had the pleasure of an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler), who painted a lovely and enticing picture of her constituency and expressed


particular support for a greater regional approach to fisheries policy. This point was made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), and the Government agree strongly—as is expressed in the motion tonight.
Like others, I acknowledge the special nature of the industry, which I know well from my constituency. Fishing is a harsh and dangerous occupation, and fishermen have regrettably paid the price for reaping the harvest of the sea. Our thoughts go to those who have lost relatives and loved ones in the fishing industry. The sinking of the Sapphire has been referred to, and I pay a personal tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for his campaign and, more especially, to the Sapphire families for the dignified way in which they have conducted their campaign.
The question of safety naturally came up in the debate. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) spoke about the five-year strategy for coastguard stations that was announced on 17 November. The aim is to enhance search and rescue around the United Kingdom and to improve the safety of seafarers, and a multi-million pound investment is being made in digital technology.
Staff, trade unions and others are being consulted on the proposed closures. A paper explaining the strategy and its detailed implications will be made available and comments invited, especially from fishermen's organisations. The Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), will publish that document, and she has been with us for this debate.
As hon. Members can see from the pile of papers in front of me, many issues have been raised in the debate. I shall try to get through as many as I can. If I fail to deal with some I shall write to those hon. Members who made them with specific answers. The first point came from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is no longer here. He queried the delay in the publication of the various figures and statistics lying behind tonight's debate. We now understand that the European Commission is to publish the full figures for the multi-annual guidance programme IV decisions today. I shall ensure that they are brought to the attention of the House as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the working time directive. As the former said, fishing is excluded from its terms; but the European Commission is considering the extension to fishermen of the directive's provisions for four weeks' paid annual leave; for health assessments for night workers; and for a guarantee of adequate rest and a maximum number of hours to be worked annually. We are aware of the industry's strong opposition to the application to sea fishing of working time requirements, and we shall seek to ensure that any arrangements introduced take full account of the realities of commercial fishing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) raised a couple of points, one of which concerned the Russian imports coming in through Aberdeen and the various hygiene requirements, which are causing difficulties. The Government are well aware

of those concerns, and Ministers have met representatives of the processing industry to try to find a satisfactory solution. The Scottish Fish Merchants Federation has also made its concerns on the urban waste water directive clear to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but we are unfortunately unable to offer any prospect of relief from the costs.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) raised a matter that I remember from a Committee on which we both served not so long ago: the problem of an oil spill that affected the fishing interests in her constituency. She said that it did not appear to be from the source from which it was originally believed to have come. She made a serious point, and I shall make inquiries on the matter. Trying to ensure that the polluter pays is a United Kingdom problem, not just a Scottish problem.
On total allowable catches and quotas, several hon. Members have spoken of the need to secure increases in this or that TAC. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will have listened to those points and they will be taken into account in the forthcoming discussions. The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned the inshore sector, and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made a similar plea. We are very mindful indeed of the regional differences in the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made an excellent speech defending the interests of her port, and the Government are very conscious of the problem to which she drew our attention. Our proposals on designated ports will be made with her concerns very much in mind.
The right hon. Member for Fylde mentioned the allocation of Atlanto-Scandian herring TAC, and described it as a very poor deal. I fully agree: it happens to be a deal which the previous Government negotiated, and unfortunately it is difficult to secure change to that allocation, but if we see an opportunity to do so we will take it.
Several hon. Members spoke about the allocation of new TACs, and horse mackerel was mentioned a few times. We acknowledge that there are problems with the definition of species and we want to ensure that if any proposals are made on allocations they are fair and take account of UK interests.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, along with the right hon. Member for Fylde and others, asked about the Hague preference, and the hon. Member for South Down made the point that its invocation in the Irish sea by the Republic works to the detriment of fishermen in Northern Ireland, whereas its invocation in the west of Scotland and the North sea can bring considerable benefits to the UK when TACs are restricted.
We will invoke the Hague preference whenever it is in our interest to do so. We recognise that fishermen from Northern Ireland often lose out because of the Irish invocation, and the Government will seek to minimise the losses by counter-invoking and by swapping in additional quotas from other member states. The hon. Member for South Down also referred to bilateral communication and discussions between the UK Government and Ireland; those are happening at a senior level through the Northern Ireland Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) expressed concern about the impact of effort control on the beam trawl segment, and other hon. Members made the same point about the pelagic segment. I want to make the point as strongly as I can that we are talking about effort control, not about cutting capacity permanently. We want to sit down with the industry and try to work out a system of effort control. We hope that those in the industry will work with us and with each other to avoid a compulsory approach and develop one that is co-operative and has the flexibility that many hon. Members said that they wanted.
On ring-fencing the pelagic segment, it is important to make the point that the changes to the licensing system will be quite complex, and that some aspects will take effect from today, to prevent action by vessel owners who might try to undermine the effect of the ring fence. We will not allow that.
Opposition Members spoke about decommissioning and expressed surprised that we were not making commitments beyond a comprehensive spending review. None of them mentioned the fact that we have managed to provide an additional £2.6 million for decommissioning since May. That money has gone a long way towards achieving our targets under MAGP III. The scale of financing any future decommissioning, and the ways in which it will be funded, will be decided following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on fisheries that is currently under way.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), mentioned discards. At the October Fisheries Council, we were able to secure a new regulation that will both change the rules on fishing gear construction and give fishermen greater flexibility in meeting catch composition rules. That will come fully into force in two years' time. We are pressing the question of square mesh panels, which my hon. Friend raised, as part of the conservation measures that we are pursuing.
I shall respond by letter to some of the other points that have been raised. In conclusion, we are taking serious steps to tackle the fundamental problems that beset the fishing industry. These steps have been set out by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 378.

Division No. 121]
[7.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Beggs, Roy
(Chipping Barnet)


Bercow, John
Chope, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clappison, James


Blunt, Crispin
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Boswell, Tim
(Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Collins, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Colvin, Michael





Cormack, Sir Patrick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
Madel, Sir David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mates, Michael


Day, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan, Alan
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forsythe, Clifford
Paterson, Owen


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Prior, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Randall, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Garnier, Edward
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
St Aubyn, Nick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gray, James
Shepherd, Richard


Green, Damian
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Greenway, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hammond, Philip
Spring, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hayes, John
Steen, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Streeter, Gary


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Syms, Robert


Horam, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, William


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tredinnick, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Trend, Michael


Johnson Smith,
Trimble, David


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tyrie, Andrew


Key, Robert
Viggers, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Walter, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wardle, Charles


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Waterson, Nigel


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wells, Bowen


Lansley, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Leigh, Edward
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Letwin, Oliver
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Willetts, David


Lidington, David
Wilshire, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Woodward, Shaun


Loughton, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Luff, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKay, Andrew
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. John Whittingdale.


Maclean, Rt Hon David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ainger, Nick
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atherton, Ms Candy


Alexander, Douglas
Atkins, Charlotte


Allan, Richard
Austin, John


Allen, Graham
Baker, Norman


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Ballard, Mrs Jackie


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Banks, Tony


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Barnes, Harry






Battle, John
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beard, Nigel
Davidson, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bennett, Andrew F
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Best, Harold
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blackman, Liz
Donohoe, Brian H


Blears, Ms Hazel
Doran, Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Drew, David


Borrow, David
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradshaw, Ben
Edwards, Huw


Brand, Dr Peter
Efford, Clive


Breed, Colin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Etherington, Bill


Browne, Desmond
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Buck, Ms Karen
Fearn, Ronnie


Burgon, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Cann, Jamie
Fyfe, Maria


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cawsey, Ian
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gerrard, Neil


Chaytor, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chidgey, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr Lynda
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gorrie, Donald


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Grogan, John


Clwyd, Ann
Gunnell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hain, Peter


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coleman, Iain
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Colman, Tony
Hancock, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Healey, John


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cooper, Yvette
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Cotter, Brian
Hesford, Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith


Cranston, Ross
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoey, Kate


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Hope, Phil


(Perth)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Lindsay





Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Maxton, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hurst, Alan
Meale, Alan


Hutton, John
Merron, Gillian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Michael, Alun


Illsley, Eric
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Milburn, Alan


Jenkins, Brian
Miller, Andrew


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mitchell, Austin


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Moffatt, Laura


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Moore, Michael


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mountford, Kali


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mudie, George


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Mullin, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Norris, Dan


Keetch, Paul
Oaten, Mark


Kelly, Ms Ruth
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Kemp, Fraser
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
O'Hara, Eddie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Olner, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
O'Neill, Martin


Kidney, David
Öpik, Lembit


Kilfoyle, Peter
Osborne, Ms Sandra


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pearson, Ian


Kirkwood, Archy
Pendry, Tom


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Perham, Ms Linda


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pickthall, Colin


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pike, Peter L


Laxton, Bob
Plaskitt, James


Lepper, David
Pope, Greg


Leslie, Christopher
Pound, Stephen


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Linton, Martin
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Livsey, Richard
Primarolo, Dawn


Llwyd, Elfyn
Prosser, Gwyn


Lock, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Love, Andrew
Quinn, Lawrie


McAllion, John
Radice, Giles


McAvoy, Thomas
Rammell, Bill


McCabe, Steve
Rapson, Syd


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Raynsford, Nick


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rendel, David


Macdonald, Calum
Robertson, Rt Hon George


McDonnell, John
(Hamilton S)


McFall, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McGrady, Eddie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rooker, Jeff


McIsaac, Shona
Rooney, Terry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Roy, Frank


McNulty, Tony
Ruane, Chris


Mactaggart, Fiona
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McWalter, Tony
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McWilliam, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mallaber, Judy
Salmond, Alex


Mandelson, Peter
Sanders, Adrian


Marek, Dr John
Savidge, Malcolm


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shaw, Jonathan






Sheerman, Barry
Tipping, Paddy


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Todd, Mark


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Touhig, Don


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Trickett, Jon


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Snape, Peter
Walley, Ms Joan


Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Webb, Steve


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew


Stevenson, George
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan



(Swansea W)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stringer, Graham
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Swinney, John
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wray, James


(Dewsbury)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 360, Noes 150.

Division No. 122]
[8.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainger, Nick
Bradshaw, Ben


Alexander, Douglas
Brand, Dr Peter


Allan, Richard
Breed, Colin


Allen, Graham
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browne, Desmond


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Buck, Ms Karen


Ashton, Joe
Burgon, Colin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burstow, Paul


Atkins, Charlotte
Butler, Mrs Christine


Austin, John
Caborn, Richard


Baker, Norman
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Canavan, Dennis


Beard, Nigel
Cann, Jamie


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne
Casale, Roger


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Caton, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cawsey, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Chapman, Ben (WirralS)


Benton, Joe
Chaytor, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Chidgey, David


Best, Harold
Chisholm, Malcolm


Blackman, Liz
Clapham, Michael


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Blizzard, Bob
Clark, Dr Lynda


Boateng, Paul
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Borrow, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)





Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Hancock, Mike


Clwyd, Ann
Harris, Dr Evan


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Connarty, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hesford, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cotter, Brian
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cranston, Ross
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hope, Phil


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davidson, Ian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Illsley, Eric


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Denham, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drew, David
Jones, Ms Jenny


Drown, Ms Julia
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Etherington, Bill
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fatchett, Derek
Keetch, Paul


Fearn, Ronnie
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flint, Caroline
Khabra, Piara S


Flynn, Paul
Kidney, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kirkwood, Archy


Foulkes, George
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fyfe, Maria
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Galloway, George
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gapes, Mike
Laxton, Bob


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lepper, David


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Leslie, Christopher


Gerrard, Neil
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Godman, Norman A
Linton, Martin


Goggins, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lock, David


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Love, Andrew


Gorrie, Donald
McAllion, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grocott, Bruce
McCartney, Ian (MakerHeld)


Grogan, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gunnell, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hain, Peter
McDonnell, John






McFall, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McGrady, Eddie
Rooker, Jeff


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rooney, Terry


McIsaac, Shona
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Roy, Frank


McNamara, Kevin
Ruane, Chris


McNulty, Tony
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McWalter, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWilliam, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sanders, Adrian


Mallaber, Judy
Savidge, Malcolm


Mandelson, Peter
Sawford, Phil


Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Merron, Gillian
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milbum, Alan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin
Soley, Clive


Moffatt, Laura
Spellar, John


Moore, Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moran, Ms Margaret
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mountford, Kali
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mudie, George
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Norris, Dan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Oaten, Mark
(Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Öpik, Lembit
Tipping, Paddy


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Todd, Mark


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pike, Peter L
Tyler, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Vaz, Keith


Pond, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pope, Greg
Walley, Ms Joan


Pound, Stephen
Wareing, Robert N


Powell, Sir Raymond
Watts, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Webb, Steve


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
White, Brian


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
(Swansea W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Quinn, Lawrie
Winterton, Ms Rosie (DoncasterC)


Radice, Giles
Wise, Audrey


Rammell, Bill
Wood, Mike


Rapson, Syd
Wray, James


Raynsford, Nick
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rendel, David



Robertson, Rt Hon George
Tellers for the Ayes:


(Hamilton S)
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Johnson Smith,


Amess, David
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Key, Robert


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Baldry, Tony
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Beggs, Roy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bercow, John
Lansley, Andrew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Leigh, Edward


Blunt, Crispin
Letwin, Oliver


Body, Sir Richard
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Boswell, Tim
Lidington, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brady, Graham
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brazier, Julian
Loughton, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
MacKay, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Madel, Sir David


(Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Maples, John


Clappison, James
Mates, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


(Rushcliffe)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Collins, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Norman, Archie


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Paterson, Owen


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Prior, David


Day, Stephen
Randall, John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Faber, David
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Flight, Howard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Forsythe, Clifford
Shepherd, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Fox, Dr Liam
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fraser, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
Spring, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Swayne, Desmond


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gray, James
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Green, Damian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Greenway, John
Thompson, William


Grieve, Dominic
Townend, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Trimble, David


Hawkins, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Hayes, John
Viggers, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Waterson, Nigel


Horam, John
Wells, Bowen


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hunter, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wilshire, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)






Woodward, Shaun
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. John Whittingdale.


Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1997 relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen based on sustainable fisheries management, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—

Committee of the whole House

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee shall be completed in two allotted days.

(2) At the sitting on the first allotted day, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected and

(b) which would insert after '9' at line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to paragraph 40 of Article 2 of the Treaty,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Seven o'clock.

(3) At the sitting on that day proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and

(b) which would insert at the end of line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to Article 2(3)(b) of the Treaty,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Nine o'clock.

(4) At the sitting on the second allotted day, any remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 and 2 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Six o'clock.

(5) At that sitting, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.

Proceedings on going into Committee

2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Report and Third Reading

4. The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Conclusion of proceedings

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 4, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion,

and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Order of proceedings

6. No motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Interruption of business

8. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour—

(a) proceedings under paragraph 5(1);

(b) proceedings to which paragraph 5(2) or (3) applies;

(c) proceedings under paragraph 10(1).

Business Committee

9. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) If at the sitting on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to bobrought to a conclusion under paragraphs 1 or 4, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Recommittal

11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day;
the Treaty" means the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts.
The Bill that we are debating again tonight passed its Second Reading five weeks ago and on that night it obtained a majority in the House of 230; 50 more than the Government majority.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: So what?

Mr. Cook: That information is relevant precisely because, in the Division, the Bill received cross-party support from four parties represented in the Chamber. It is not simply a partisan measure supported by the Government alone; it represents a widely held view in the House. Among the mainland parties, only the Conservative party voted against it. Even one or two among that party managed to smuggle out messages that they did so half-heartedly.
Since the Second Reading debate, the Bill has received detailed consideration over three days. It has now been debated on the Floor of the House for 20 hours.

Mr. Shepherd: Oh!

Mr. Cook: I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman finds so funny about that idea. I am bound to say that if he had sat through all of those 20 hours he would not have found them quite so funny.

Mr. Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Cook: I shall proceed. The hon. Gentleman can intervene later.
That consideration is on top of the evidence on the Bill that I gave to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), gave to the Scrutiny Committee. No fair-minded person can complain that Parliament has not had an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose—

Mr. Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Cook: I did say fair minded. I owe it to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to give way.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman is making out a case out about the details of the Bill and he is about to argue that it requires a guillotine. He will remember that the instance cited by the Leader of the House about the Single European Act was one which the right hon. Gentleman thought outrageous at the time, as did the right hon. Lady. They both voted against it. This is a constitutional Bill of


the first importance. The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that, yet he is so casual about imposing a guillotine of this nature on such an important Bill.

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is in order for the Leader of the House, who represents the entire House, to provide a cue for the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Such things are not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that if I ever require a prompt I shall be delighted to take it from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I have quite a lot of material here that I wish to share with the House.
May I say briefly to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that I do at least salute the fact that he objected last Thursday when the Bill was proposed. He was the only Opposition Member who complained and I have to report to the House that, since the announcement last Thursday, we have not had one representation from the official Opposition.

Mr. Shepherd: That is not surprising.

Mr. Cook: I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman means.
The motion is before the House because the House in Committee has dealt with only one third of the selected groups of amendments and is currently stuck on the fourth set of amendments. During our proceedings, hours of debate have been spent on monetary union, although the treaty of Amsterdam does not contain one new provision on monetary union.
I will not deny that some of those debates make entertaining reading, as much of the time has been taken up by one faction of the Conservative party arguing with another.

Mr. Michael Howard: Nonsense.

Mr. Cook: I have it all here. There were times when Tory Members appeared more enthusiastic about scrutinising each other' s views than about scrutinising the legislation before the House. [Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees, let me remind him that on the second day in Committee the former Chancellor disagreed with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) disagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) disagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) disagreed with his hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wycombe.
In fairness, I recognise that the shadow Foreign Secretary has done his bit to shorten our proceedings by preventing votes that would have revealed the divisions on his Back Benches. On Second Reading and in Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman

rehearsed his fantasy fears that all 14 other member states would enter into a conspiracy to use the new article on fundamental human rights as a pretext to rob Britain of its voting powers. Despite hours of debate in Committee, the amendment tabled by him on that point was not pressed to a Division. I read in The Daily Telegraph that the amendment was not voted upon because the hon. Member for Wycombe visited the shadow Chief Whip and told him that many Tory Members could not vote for it.
It is, I admit it to my hon. Friends, tempting to allow the proceedings on the Bill to continue to run, so that we can continue to savour the spectacle of an Opposition whose members cannot abide each other's views on Europe, but we have a higher duty—to protect the legislative programme that fulfils the mandate on which the Government were overwhelmingly elected and to ensure that the business of the House proceeds in an orderly fashion.
We therefore present to the House a timetable motion that provides for an orderly and reasonable completion of the proceedings on the Bill with a further full two days of debate. In total, that will mean that the Bill will have been examined on the Floor of the House over six days of debate, which, by any fair test, is a reasonable opportunity for the House to scrutinise it fully.

Mr. Swayne: The Bill may have been examined over six days, but for how much time in any day was it scrutinised? On the days when we have examined it so far, there just happen to have been all sorts of Government statements, which has meant that we have not begun consideration of the Bill until later—not until 6 pm on one occasion.

Mr. Cook: I concede that we are a Government who are active and have a lot of business to announce to the House. Indeed, we are frequently twigged by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench on the ground that we do not announce enough to the House. If it would assist the hon. Gentleman, I could tell him that in future we will try to ensure that such announcements fall on an Opposition day rather than on one of the Government's legislation days.
I do not expect any display of gratitude from the shadow Foreign Secretary for curtailing the opportunity for the Conservatives to air their divisions. On the contrary, I look forward with keen anticipation to a display of virtuous indignation on behalf of the rights of Members of Parliament.
There are a couple of reasons why such a display of mock indignation will be especially misplaced in the context of the Bill. The first is that most of the policies in the Bill are policies that even Conservative Members support, notably the legal basis for Britain's external border controls. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary keeps telling us that that is a provision that he himself negotiated. I am bound to say that no such provision was in any text of the draft treaty when we took over, but as he persists in believing his own rhetoric it is all the more odd that he should wish to talk out a provision for which at the same time he claims the credit.
Conversely, the one thing that most Conservatives can agree to oppose in the Bill is that it gives effect to Labour's commitment to take Britain into the social


chapter. It would be hard, even for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to argue that that is a policy which we tried to keep hidden. On the contrary, we have campaigned vigorously for that objective since the Conservatives first invented the opt-out six years ago.
There cannot have been an elector who voted Labour in May who was unaware that the consequence of his or her vote would be to extend the benefits of the social chapter to Britain, and in that full knowledge the nation voted in gratifyingly large numbers for a Government to carry out the policy. It is a perverse distortion of reality to claim that a timetable motion to protect our commitment to the people is an affront to democracy. On the contrary, it is Opposition Members who have sought to frustrate the democratic vote of the nation by delaying the Committee proceedings.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary must know that he went to the country wanting to extend qualified majority voting in four particular areas of policy, but succeeded in delivering only one of them. Never mind that he succeeded in conceding qualified majority voting in 13 other areas, of which the electorate were totally unaware. We are debating precisely that fact in Committee as the right hon. Gentleman introduces the timetable motion.

Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on complaining that I failed in my objective of extending qualified majority voting. That is a new line of attack for the Conservative Opposition. I must point out to him that the extension of qualified majority voting at Amsterdam was half the extension brought about by the Maastricht treaty, and was almost infinitesimal compared with the major extension that took place when the Conservatives entered the single market in 1986. In the light of that record, we shall take no lectures from Conservative Members about protecting the British veto.

Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make some progress. I shall give way to him later.
I also remind the House that during the Conservative years they presented guillotine motions to the House 82 times—one for every two Tory Members who survived the deluge of the last election. In a previous debate, the shadow Foreign Secretary described Robespierre as a great reforming socialist. I am not sure whether I would go all the way with that characterisation, but I would certainly agree that Robespierre's affection for the guillotine was entirely shared by the Conservatives while they were in government.
Only last year, the present shadow Foreign Secretary presented to the House a guillotine motion that provided not for two days in Committee but for two hours in Committee. At least three times in the previous Parliament, the Conservative Government presented a guillotine motion not after three days in Committee but before the Second Reading had even begun.
I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he himself voted for the guillotine motion on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in 1986. The

guillotine motion that he voted for on that occasion was less generous than the one that he will vote against tonight. It, too, followed three days of proceedings in Committee, but it provided for only a further five hours of debate. That Bill set up the single market and made far more sweeping changes to our relations with Europe than anything in the Amsterdam treaty.

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)? Why does the Foreign Secretary wax so eloquent on the subject of the single market when he was against the guillotine motion on that Bill?

Mr. Shepherd: So was the Prime Minister.

Mr. Cash: So was the Prime Minister—and the Leader of the House. How can the Foreign Secretary get away with such hypocrisy, given that he thinks it is wrong for us to continue the debate and is imposing a guillotine on this Bill?

Mr. Cook: I can explain that with the greatest of pleasure. First, this is a much more generous timetable motion than the motion we were offered then. Secondly, that Bill was of greater constitutional magnitude because it provided for the most significant extension of qualified majority voting in the history of the European Union.

Mr. Cash: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Cook: What I said is true. That Bill provided for a wide extension of Community competence through 11 new titles for Community action, which is far more than the Amsterdam treaty provides. It paved the way for most of the European Union regulations that Conservative Members now complain about most loudly.

Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I shall not give way again.
Let us have no humbug about constitutional outrages from the very people who guillotined the earlier Bill. This Bill contains no similar measure of fundamental constitutional change. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described it in Committee as "a mouse", although no doubt that will not prevent him from puffing in mock indignation as he marches through the Division Lobby to oppose his mouse being guillotined.
I do not deny that the Bill is important. It is important because of the real benefits for the people of Britain that the Amsterdam treaty provides. The treaty gives, for the first time, explicit legal authority for Britain to retain its border controls; it confirms NATO as the cornerstone of our defence; it provides a fuller, legally binding basis for the principle of subsidiarity; it provides for tougher action on fraud against the Community budget; it obliges the European Union to give greater priority to protecting the environment, promoting openness in its proceedings and to tackling unemployment; and it extends to the working people in Britain the same rights under the social chapter as are enjoyed throughout the continent, but which were denied to them by the Conservatives.
The Bill fulfils the manifesto commitments on which we were elected by the British people. I commend the timetable motion to the House, so that the Government are not frustrated in their duty to carry out that electoral commitment. A vote for the motion will enable us to give effect to the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of Members of Parliament at Second Reading and to the even clearer choice of the people of Britain at the general election.

Mr. Michael Howard: The Foreign Secretary's performance showed the complete contempt in which he and the Government hold the House. He advanced two utterly novel propositions in justification of the guillotine. Their novelty was equal to their absurdity.
The first novel proposition advanced by the Foreign Secretary in support of the guillotine motion was that a large majority for a Bill on Second Reading relieves the House of its duty to scrutinise that legislation. What an extraordinary proposition. The second proposition that he advanced was that unanimity on the Opposition Benches in Committee is required if a guillotine is to be averted. That is another extraordinary proposition, even if one does not take into account the fact that some of the most striking speeches in Committee were made by Labour Back Benchers in complete contradiction to everything that we have heard from the Government.
The Foreign Secretary referred at length to some of the minor differences of emphasis placed on this subject by Conservative Back Benchers in Committee. No one could apply that description to the contributions of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) or the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), whose powerful speeches were different in tone from and completely contradictory to everything we heard from the Government.
One of our first duties as Members of Parliament is to debate legislation. By discharging that duty, we hold Government to account and serve the interests of our constituents. We are not relieved of that duty by the fact that the Bill received a large majority on Second Reading, or that differences of view on the Bill's contents are expressed by hon. Members from both sides of the House.
The Foreign Secretary has moved to guillotine an important constitutional Bill after just 12 hours in Committee. The Bill puts into British law the treaty agreed at Amsterdam. The treaty transfers significant powers from the House and from those whom we are elected to serve, to the European Union.
The Bill is not just another measure relating to domestic affairs, making some adjustment to our domestic arrangements that could easily be put right by another measure in some future Parliament. It is not even a domestic constitutional Bill, such as those for devolution in Scotland and Wales, which could be repealed by future legislation. The Bill enshrines in law a treaty that has been negotiated with our partners in Europe. No future Parliament can undo its provisions unless the Government of the day are prepared to renegotiate the treaty.
What makes the Bill doubly significant is that it reduces the powers of this Parliament. By simultaneously reducing the ability of the member states to veto European legislation and increasing the power of the European

Parliament to veto that legislation, it diminishes the powers of the House. That is why the guillotine motion is so obnoxious. It means that these momentous decisions will be taken without full and proper debate.
This is the second time in six months that the Government have stifled debate on a major constitutional issue, and this latest decision is all of a pattern with the contempt that they have shown for Parliament since 1 May. There has been the change without consultation in the format of Prime Minister's questions, a change which I suspect the Prime Minister is already beginning to regret. There is an obsession with making announcements anywhere but in the House, and there has even been the failure of a Minister to turn up to reply to an Adjournment debate. Those are formidable manifestations of the arrogance of the Government's attitude to Parliament.
Of course, the list does not end there. Since taking office, the Government have made plain their intention to whittle away the powers of the House and of those who sent us here, and to transfer them to assemblies elsewhere in Britain, to Europe, to the Bank of England and to an unelected judiciary. When the Government treat the House with contempt, they treat with contempt those who send us here. This motion is just the tip of that iceberg.
The guillotine motion is the most draconian way to silence debate that exists in Parliament. "Erskine May" is clear. Under "Allocation of Time Orders (Guillotines)" it states:
They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
Governments have traditionally sought to guillotine debate only after it has become clear that insufficient progress is being made. "Erskine May" also states:
An allocation of time order is not usually moved … until the rate of progress in Committee has provided an argument for its necessity.
However, this arrogant and disdainful Government moved to guillotine the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill before it had even reached Committee. On this Bill, if the Government are so concerned about time and progress, why have they not moved a single closure motion? They have not made one complaint about our speed of progress so far. The Government now intend to cram the rest of the Committee debate on the Bill and Report and Third Reading into just two days. How can Ministers credibly argue that the timetable gives the House sufficient time to scrutinise legislation?
Qualified majority voting, the co-decision procedure, institutional change, flexibility, the free movement of people, discrimination, subsidiarity, proportionality and the location of European institutions are all vital issues of constitutional importance, and the Government deem it fit to debate them, if at all, for just a few hours.
Guillotines can be justified only where an Opposition have filibustered a Bill, where they have refused all reasonable suggestions to agree a timetable, or where there is no possibility of the Government getting their business through at reasonable speed without a guillotine."—[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol.126, c.756.]
Those are not my words: they are the words of the present Home Secretary. I challenge the Foreign Secretary to tell the House which, if any, of those conditions have


been fulfilled in this case. There has been no question of a filibuster, no suggestion of agreeing a timetable has been put to us, and there is absolutely no reason why the Government should not get their business through at reasonable speed without the guillotine.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks why we have not come and asked the Opposition to agree to a timetable motion and I must answer, although I do not think that it is an answer he will find comfortable. We have not come and asked him to agree to a voluntary timetable motion, because we knew that he could not deliver his own Back Benchers. As he has discovered all these weighty arguments against a guillotine motion, will he now tell the House which of the arguments he advanced inside the Conservative Government when they guillotined the Bill that became the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the poll tax?

Mr. Howard: These arguments were highly relevant to that Bill—the conditions were fulfilled. That is the difference between the two cases.
Let me make the position clear. There are those of my hon. Friends who can argue the case tonight on the basis that no guillotine is justified, but I do not argue the case on that basis. Of course I recognise that guillotines can be justified, but I accept the criteria that I have just put forward. Those criteria, or at least one of them, have to be met if a guillotine is to be justified. All the Foreign Secretary could say in answer to my challenge to identify which of the three criteria was being used to justify this guillotine was not to identify any of them, but to give a reason why the Government had not even approached the Opposition with an offer for an agreed timetable for the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. With 1997 hindsight, can he now say that the guillotining of the poll tax legislation was justified? That Bill imposed the poll tax on Scotland a year ahead of its introduction in England, and was, in my view, the beginning of the end for Scottish Conservative representation in this House.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to his view on the merits of that legislation, but the justification for the guillotine was ample. If he goes back and sees the extent to which these criteria applied to that Bill, he will find his answer.
There are, of course, some who claim that the constitutional issues to which I have referred are not really of any interest to people, and that people are really interested only in the nitty-gritty issues such as jobs; but I do not share that view. I think that the people of this country are keenly interested in their rights and freedoms and the extent to which those will survive; but even on the least abstract test—the extent to which people's jobs and livelihoods will be affected—the Bill is of supreme importance, because it would incorporate the social chapter into our law. It would enable our European partners and our competitors to force us to impose on British business the burdens that are having such a significant impact on their own firms.
Jacques Delors said that the social chapter opt-out won by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) would make the United Kingdom
a paradise for Japanese investment".
He was right. Because we have a flexible labour market, excellent industrial relations and low overheads, Britain's firms have been able to take on and beat the competition. That is why we have created the jobs and why unemployment has come down, but that opt-out will now be ended. There are already proposals on the table to which even the Labour Government are opposed, but which we shall be powerless to prevent as a result of the Bill. What an outrage that such a far-reaching measure should be subjected to the guillotine.
I now turn to the areas of the Bill that have yet to be discussed in Committee—vital areas, about which we will barely have time to say a word or two because of the guillotine.
We are opposed to the extensions of qualified majority voting and the co-decision procedure agreed at Amsterdam, because they would take power from this Parliament and give it to Brussels. On institutional changes, we fail to understand why the Government agreed to more powers for the President of the Commission. Why should he have the power to veto Commissioners recommended by the member states? What was the justification for a change that takes power from democratically elected Governments and gives it to an unelected official?
On the question of free movement of people, we support the British opt-out on frontiers. It was not I who had the privilege of negotiating that opt-out, nor have I ever suggested that it was, but it was a Conservative Foreign Secretary who secured agreement to it. Policy on frontier controls, asylum and immigration should be decided in Britain, not in Brussels.
We must have an opportunity to debate the Government's extraordinary allegations about the behaviour of the Spanish and Dutch Governments at and after the Amsterdam summit. The Government of the United Kingdom are alleging that those governments did a private deal in the margins of the summit, failed to report it to the other members of the Council, and smuggled it into the treaty. In other words, say the Government, they cheated.
That is a truly astonishing allegation. What confidence does it foster in the decision-making process of the European Union? After all, no self-respecting golf club would allow two members of its committee to do a hole-in-the-corner deal, keep it secret from the rest of the committee, and smuggle it through into the minutes of the committee decision.
We are told that the Government made representations to the Dutch presidency, but they clearly did not think it serious enough to raise at the Luxembourg summit. Why on earth not? Why on earth did they not complain at that gathering? We know that the Dutch Government are concerned about the allegations. We know that they wrote to the British Government about them as long ago as 16 July, but the Government refuse to publish that letter.
We are continually being told about the Government's devotion to open government. Indeed, the treaty of Amsterdam introduces a requirement for the European Union to espouse the cause of open government.


Why, then, will not the Government publish the letter of 16 July? I hope that the Minister will deal fully with that point when he replies to the debate.
I have not dealt this evening with all the shortcomings of the Amsterdam treaty; it would not have been appropriate to do so, serious and far-reaching though those shortcomings are. The treaty was as bad for what it omitted as for what it included—nothing to stop quota hopping, nothing to reform the European Court of Justice, and nothing to help enlargement. The treaty was a negotiating failure for the Government: bad for Britain and bad for Europe.
We have opposed the Bill in a constructive and measured way. We believe that it is necessary to scrutinise the details; we believe that it is necessary to question Ministers on the effects of the various provisions; we believe that it is necessary to explore the implications of the transfer of powers that the treaty provides. This guillotine will make it impossible for us to discharge those essential constitutional details. It is the action of an arrogant and complacent Government, who have no respect for this House. That is why we shall oppose it in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The great Arizona senator, Morris Udall, was once asked why the convention of the Democratic party, of which he was such a distinguished member, lasted for four days. He said, "It is really quite simple. After two days, everything had been said, but not everyone had said it." For those who have had any connection with the Second Reading or Committee stage of the Bill, that judgment applies as equally and acutely as it possibly could. Everything that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, in outraged tones redolent of his previous practice, seemed to me to be things that I had heard before—if not from him, from the phalanx of eager-faced young men recently elected to the House of Commons and anxious to make their mark on the Benches of the Conservative party. Those of us who have sat through—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are your colleagues?"] They have every confidence in me to deal with these matters.
Those of us who had to listen to the Conservative party's participation in the debate felt that there was nothing new to be said.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to demonstrate that once again.

Mr. Blunt: The hon. and learned Gentleman's observations would carry more weight if he had been in the House for rather more of the Committee stage.

Mr. Campbell: That is untrue; I have been present for 80 or 90 per cent. of the Committee stage. That compares pretty favourably with other hon. Members. Hansard will show that many of the speeches have been repetitious, rehearsing points that had been made on Second Reading. Indeed, in some cases they were merely a rehearsal of the speeches made on Second Reading.
Therefore, when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe presents himself with such enthusiasm and anxiety to protect the interests of his constituents, he would do well to reflect on the fact that virtually everything he said in support of that proposition has been said in the House not once, but many times on and since Second Reading.
It is unacceptable that a Bill of this importance should be allowed to make so little progress. Between Second Reading and the Committee stage, more than 20 hours have been devoted to the Bill in the House. All the issues to which I have referred have been canvassed and we are barely past the second group of amendments.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: Not for the moment.
I have noted with interest not only the duration of Conservative Members's speeches, but the number of interventions that they have made and the number of artificial interventions that they have made on each other. That, perhaps more than anything else, gives the lie to the notion that there has been no effort at stringing the Bill out and at filibuster.
It has not only been the length of speeches or the frequency of interventions: some of the quality of argument has shown that there is no serious intent to deal with the issues that the Bill raises.
For example, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe became very exercised about article J16 and the role of the Secretary-General of the Council, high representative for the common foreign and security policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had the powers of a Metternich or a Kissinger, but when we read the article, we find that the high representative
shall assist the Council in matters coming within the scope of the common foreign and security policy, in particular through contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions, and, when appropriate and acting on behalf of the Council at the request of the Presidency, through conducting political dialogue with third parties.
It would be hard to imagine a more lukewarm job specification for someone acting in the common foreign and security policy arena. That sort of argument in the debate was as much of a window on the attitude of the Conservative Opposition as were the duration of their speeches or the frequency of their interventions.
As has been pointed out, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described the treaty, for which the Bill is the enabling instrument, as a mouse of a treaty. Of course, in those days, the official position of Her Majesty's Opposition was that, so important were the issues raised by the Bill—they were so fundamental constitutionally—that there had to be a referendum. The referendum, along with the baseball cap, appears to have disappeared from the political scene, but that does not alter the fact that the Bill does not justify the apocalyptic terms in which it has been described, or the synthetic description of the consequences of the guillotine motion that is to be passed by the House.
I would prefer it if it were not necessary to guillotine legislation at all, but that could be achieved only if we were to adopt what the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has accepted,


for the purpose of experiment, as a matter at least of principle: that all Bills should be timetabled from the beginning, so that there would be proper opportunity for scrutiny of all relevant parts of all Bills, and there would not be either the need to impose guillotines or encouragement to create circumstances in which guillotines might be imposed.
As the Bill has gone through the three Committee days on the Floor of the House, it has been obvious that the official Opposition were almost willing the Government to impose a guillotine, so that the official Opposition could reflect the synthetic anger and anxiety of which we have heard so much. It was clearly part of the tactic. Unable to deal the merits of the argument, they think that there may be something a little more substantial to attack in the imposition of a guillotine.
The Bill should be passed as soon as possible. It is in the interests of all our constituents—

Mr. Swayne: Subjects.

Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman thinks of our constituents as subjects, and if that was a common view among Conservative candidates at the general election, it is perhaps not surprising that so few Conservative Members were returned to Parliament. I did not hear my Conservative opponent saying that the electors were all subjects, but perhaps Conservative candidates in other parts of the United Kingdom thought that that was the appropriate way to proceed. If so, it would explain their lack of numbers.
The Bill should be passed as soon as possible. By the time the terms of the guillotine motion have been implemented, the Bill will have been allotted sufficient time. It is in the interests of our constituents that it should be passed, which is why I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Sir Michael Spicer: One thing that has to be said about the Committee stage of the Bill that enshrined the Maastricht treaty in law—I had the honour to play a part in it—was that there was no guillotine. My colleagues and I who took part in the Maastricht debate were trying to guess how many times the Government had to bring the Committee stage to a close. We may not be absolutely correct, but we guess that it was about 30 times. If that is the case, I had the honour to vote against the closure 30 times, as did several of my hon. Friends who are here now.
The then Government used the usual procedures of the House in dealing with a highly controversial Bill that they could have guillotined. They had the power to guillotine it and certainly had the votes. The Opposition, who were in collusion with the Government on the matter at that time, would no doubt have abstained or faded into the night, and the Government would have got the guillotine motion. However, the Government chose not to take that route.
It is perfectly legitimate for my hon. Friends, and especially my colleagues on the Front Bench, to argue that it would have been appropriate to use the usual procedures to deal with a highly contentious Bill now. As

I understand it, part of the Government's argument is that this is not a very important Bill. They say that we are making too much fuss about it. I have to say—this may surprise my colleagues as much as it surprises the Government—that large parts of the Bill are simply more of what we already have.
We have not yet got to the foreign and security policy aspects of the Bill, but, when we do, we will find that they are simply more of what we have had before. The same is true of qualified majority voting—one can happily argue that, to some extent, the pass was sold on the principles of QMV. It might also be contentious to say from the Opposition Benches that the social chapter provisions were pretty well established through the parts of the treaty dealing with health and safety. I would make the same case for the frontier opt-out which matters enormously to the Danes. However, the opt-out can be circumvented.
I suspect that one would not need to be a very clever lawyer in the European Court to start arguing about the frontier opt-out on the grounds of competition policy, as happened with health and safety on the social chapter. Of course, it is better to have the opt-out than not to have it; nevertheless, one suspects that, in the context of the movement that Europe is making at the moment, it does not amount to a tin of beans.
Among the issues in the legislation that we will not be discussing in the detail that we should is human rights—which, one must accept, is a new matter of principle: the idea that a member state will not be expelled but will be refused its voting rights because it does not comply with the will of the majority. Ministers have asked, "Who would possibly attack or gang up on the United Kingdom on human rights grounds? Only the Greeks will be in the dock on that matter."
One could, however, quite easily conceive—as some have conceived in debates on the Bill—of circumstances in which it might be said that what we were doing in Northern Ireland, for example, was unacceptable to other member states. If they do not like what we are doing on the single currency, for example, perhaps they will gang up on us. They certainly have the power to do so, and that is the important point. The powers now exist, and that is a new step and a new matter of principle. It is an important matter, and we should have further time to debate it. Although it has been wrongly caricatured by Labour Members, the Government have conceded a new principle. Other member states will be able to gang up to remove all voting rights from one of their number. Ministers may shake their heads, but that is the established principle.
The point that really worries me is one that we have not yet debated and one which the Government make a big play of in their favour: subsidiarity. Subsidiarity was presented to those of us who had concerns about the treaty of Maastricht as one of the treaty's fig-leaves. It was always said that, in the treaty of Maastricht, we had at least started to establish some counterpoise to the movement towards a federal, centralised, socialised European state. Time and again, during that Bill's passage, the argument from both Front Benches was that we had firmly established something called subsidiarity. The wording in article 3b was said to be quite clear. It stated:
In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity".


The wording was given as some kind of answer to hon. Members who said that we were moving inexorably towards a federal state of Europe. Some hon. Members asked, "Who will determine which matters fall within the competence of the nation state, and which matters fall within the competence of the federal state?" We never received a proper answer to that question, although it was obvious that federal institutions would ultimately determine which bits they would have the goodness of heart to cast back to national authorities. Those bits were few. I remember having long discussions about planning decisions, many of which were to be reserved or at least held at the discretion of the federal authority.
Ministers have said with great excitement that, in the treaty of Amsterdam, they have now somehow achieved something on subsidiarity, and that they have really—for once, they say—established some firmness of definition and of purpose.

Mr. Swayne: The Foreign Secretary said it himself.

Mr. Robin Cook: I did not say it.

Sir Michael Spicer: If the Foreign Secretary did not say it, it does not really matter, because we need to be concerned only with the wording. Paragraph (2) of the protocol on subsidiarity states:
The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law".
There we have it. Some of us have always argued—in that sense, we do not get desperately excited about the Bill because it is just more of the same—that we have been moving in a clear and apparently irreversible direction; we have maintained our position on the basis that two forces are moving us towards a federal state. First, there is the apparently inexorable move towards monetary union, with all the effects on monetary policy and the transfer of reserves, and—as we argue strongly—in terms of fiscal policy. We cannot have a single monetary policy without a single fiscal policy, not least because the two have to be run in tandem, but also because a single price system without a single wage system throughout Europe must mean a massive transfer of funds from rich to poor nations. That must be combined with a central taxation feature. Of course, all the institutional arrangements for that are in place.
The process is inexorable. I know that at least one of my right hon. Friends says that there is a distinction between a federal state and a single currency state—or a system in which there is a single currency. However, I cannot understand how that can be true.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman and perhaps other hon. Members that this is not a general debate on Europe. We are talking about the allocation of time.

Sir Michael Spicer: I understand that, and I shall move straight on to my next point.
The section on subsidiarity in the treaty of Amsterdam has to be seen in the context of what is happening in Europe. It relates in particular to the second force that is working inexorably towards a federal state—the European Court of Justice.
We should have time to discuss the treaty and the protocol, which are of intense importance because, for the first time, they enshrine into the European Court of Justice and into the concept of the acquis communautaire the concept of subsidiarity. Until now, that has been left vague. Some of us said that it was too vague and that it was being used as an excuse for moving towards a federal state, but now it is enshrined in the treaty. The European Court has derived its powers largely from itself—it has built up its own powers through various court cases with Sabena, giving it priority to set up new law, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, giving it priority over domestic Parliaments, and acquis communitaire, giving it the powers of occupied territory to move further forward in one direction.
Now, in the treaty of Amsterdam, the Government are blowing their own trumpet and trying to get away with the argument that the enshrinement of subsidiarity somehow provides a balance. In the treaty of Amsterdam, they have enshrined the concept and handed it over to the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Swayne: May I ask my hon. Friend how long he suspects that subsidiarity might survive, given that article B of the treaty says:
The Union shall set itself the following objectives".
The fourth such objective is
to maintain in full the acquis communitaire and build on it"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be encouraged to answer that intervention. I have already made the point that we are talking specifically about the allocation of time.

Sir Michael Spicer: Of course I understand. If I may be so bold as to say so, my point fits directly into the question that my hon. Friend has just asked me. We are not being given enough time to discuss paragraph 2 of the protocol on subsidiarity which is a central part of the Amsterdam treaty—it is the part which the Government swank about. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this time the acquis communautaire is being connected to subsidiarity and the whole matter handed over to the European Court to determine what should be subsidiary and what should not.
That is a major new step. The Government should not be allowed to get away with making such assertions about legislation. That is one of the central reasons why we should have more time to discuss the matter. Governments have claimed for some time that they are retracting power from Europe through a piece of European legislation, when, in fact, they are doing precisely the opposite. Only if we have time to explore the issue will we be able to winkle that out of the Government and put them on their back foot. It is terribly important to the public understanding of what is going on through the treaty of Amsterdam that that should be so.
I rest my case, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will perhaps be glad to hear, on a point about ratification of the treaty by national Parliaments. Especially in this country, where we do not have a pattern of holding referendums, we must ensure that Parliament has time to discuss the ratification of treaties. Such treaties fundamentally affect this country's constitution in, as it happens, a progressive way, towards a federal state of Europe.
Apart from Portugal, which may have a referendum, Denmark is the only country left with a referendum. As we shall pass the legislation in a matter of hours, this country will certainly not have much more to say about the treaty. The ratification process is becoming a matter of rubber stamping as a result of this motion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to Denmark. Is not it ominous and significant that, in Denmark, when the Euro-apologists and those who support a federal Europe did not get their way, the rules were changed? We should have more time to discuss what is involved. In Denmark, those who support a federal Europe persuaded others to undertake a second referendum. Are we going to allow a second referendum if, for instance, Denmark—again—or Portugal vote no? Are we again going to breach all the principles and time limits that formed part of the Maastricht debate on the European Community?
My hon. Friend is correct. The legislation will have a fundamental effect on our constitution, and that is why we should have more time to discuss it. We are talking not only about the European Court of Justice but a single currency. If one gives up control of one's currency, one loses control of one's economy; and if one loses control of one's economy, one loses control of one's country. Should this Parliament allow that to happen? I do not believe that it should.

Sir Michael Spicer: That was an excellent speech, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend was able to make it.
The point that I was making was that if Parliament goes ahead with the process of rubber stamping this legislation, the only country left which will be able to try to stand its ground will be Denmark.
I end on this question: what is this all about? What are we doing? One thing that we are doing is moving towards a federal state of Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the economic aspect, and I mentioned the legislative aspect. We will not be able to get to grips with the Government's claim that the legislation is some kind of balancing act, and that there is give and take. There is not; the legislation is part of an inexorable process towards a federal state of Europe. No one has shown me why it is to the good of this country to give up our economy and our democracy. What will that be replaced with? It will certainly not be replaced with stronger democratic institutions. No new seasoned economic instrument will safeguard this country.
The treaty is of great importance because it is part of a seemingly seamless process. We should have had time to discuss the phoney element of the Government's claim that the Bill is balanced. We will not have enough time to challenge the argument that the element of subsidiarity in the Bill is a balance against all the federal moves and the changes to qualified majority voting that it contains. It is the opposite, and we should have had time to discuss that.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I agree with some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer).

The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) revealed what the concept of new Liberal, new Democrat means: essentially, it is that what he believes in is right and what others believe in is wrong. He is happy to have a guillotine on that basis.
The Foreign Secretary, whose talents as a forensic cross-examiner in the House have been exhilarating to witness, resorts to Tweedledum—or possibly Tweedledee—politics: the arguments that he advocated yesterday are not the ones that he advocated today. The cynicism associated with that reversal of position undermines the standing of the House, and, if I may be so frank, the standing of the Foreign Secretary himself. We are not sent here only to administer the actions of government, as the Foreign Secretary well knows. In his long 18 years in opposition, he fought many battles, one of which was opposition to the guillotine. In almost all the guillotine votes, I joined him in the Lobby to express the inappropriateness and unreasonableness of curtailing debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made the points that everyone in opposition would make.
I wish to refer closely to a note of a previous speech:
the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is not just another Bill relating to our domestic affairs. It is not a Bill which, however objectionable to the Opposition and others and however truncated the debate on it, is still capable of repeal and replacement in a subsequent Parliament when a different party will occupy the Treasury Bench. It is not even what might be described as a domestic constitutional Bill, such as the Bill abolishing the metropolitan counties or the Bill on devolution for Scotland and Wales, for they, too, are capable of restoration or repeal in a subsequent Parliament.>
What is special about the Bill is that it gives legislative effect to a treaty concluded with other nations—the member states of the EEC—and upon whose institutions it confers additional legislative powers. Once passed, this measure cannot be repealed by a subsequent Parliament, unless that Parliament is prepared to tear up the underlying treaty itself—a special dimension of difficulty which I do not believe many … Members have even given serious thought to."—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 937.]
Those words were spoken in opposition to the Single European Act by the then Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney—now Lord Shore. That is the essence of this Bill and why it is important to us.
The Bill is a transfer from democratic institutions to other arrangements which are not democratic. The treaty gives more power to the European Parliament, extends competencies, extends qualified majority voting, redefines or re-emphasises citizenship and deals with other matters, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out. No one doubts that those issues are important; that is why we are fighting and struggling for a form of democracy that the Government are prepared—as were the previous Government—to wave goodbye to. There was seen to be greater grasp in conceding the democratic right to change the laws under which we live, but the equality of citizens is the first trust of democracy.
I have heard many a fine speech on these matters by the Foreign Secretary, but that is all out of the window now. Office has converted and changed his view, and that saddens me. In those days, the right hon. Gentleman contended fiercely with Sir Malcolm Rifkind across the Floor of the House; we well remember that. I believed—perhaps wrongly—that the trust that he held then in the democratic and detailed discussion of these points was important.
I take the imposition of a guillotine at this stage very seriously. Some 19 hours have been cited—in 19 hours a detail is passed away. I will now explain why this is important, and the contribution of the Single European Act, which went through with a guillotine motion far worse than the one that we are debating today. I accept all that. I disliked it then and I thought it inappropriate and wrong.
It is interesting that none of us understood entirely the weight of the argument. We were given assurances by Ministers that the Act could not be interpreted in certain ways. Those assurances were given and accepted in good faith, but we discovered—as they unwound—that they did not amount to much. Circumstances, judgments made by others elsewhere and qualified majority voting changed our understanding of the weight of constitutional arrangements. The unpicking of Maastricht laid open to the House the full ambition of this new constitutional arrangement.
Perhaps that is what the Foreign Secretary and his Front-Bench colleagues fear, but I think not. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he mentioned that the Government did not want their programme upset. We are in a medley of vast constitutional change—unbalanced, unthought and guillotined, for this is now the third guillotine of the new Parliament.
The Foreign Secretary is right to excoriate the Conservative party's past. Many of those who voted so triumphantly for guillotines are no longer here to see the outcome of their actions. We learned, and that is why I want the Foreign Secretary and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect solemnly on this. The argument is very important, and each clause and chapter means something. This new constitution is beyond the reach of this House—other than, as Lord Shore said, by completely repealing the legislation. I do not think that most hon. Members want that.
The Government have—without understanding, I would contend—entered into a series of new agreements. The then Conservative Government found at the time of Maastricht that they had no understanding of the overall architecture of the legislation. Ministers negotiated little bits; the Home Secretary did the home affairs bit, the Foreign Secretary did this and Treasury Ministers did that, but no one stood back to look at the overall picture. Each could say, "My little bit is not so significant, as it is all part of a piece that is fine."
The then Home Secretary—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—to whom the Foreign Secretary referred, did not even know that the Queen was a citizen. There was no understanding of the constitutional changes and that is why a guillotine is inappropriate now. The Government should seriously reflect on that point. I fear that we shall see a process of guillotines; first, on Scotland. The Welsh business has been taken off the Floor of the House. The right of every hon. Member to speak on a matter of fundamental constitutional importance is being withdrawn from us.
The new Labour Government, in their first flush, have taken this opportunity to use their Back Benchers, who have not yet weighed the responsibilities of law making—this was true of my party in the past—to make a law which is, in terms of the treaty, irrevocable and irreversible.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I come to this debate as a new Member; it is the first timetable debate in which I have taken part. Faced with a new Government who came to office talking about openness, change and cleaning up after those frightful Tories, one would have thought that the examples that they were quoting in the debate would not be examples from the previous Government—but that is what we are faced with. They cited the Single European Act 1985, and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, cited the poll tax debates, to which I shall return in detail in a moment.
I have looked back at the various precedents. We have had 12 hours discussion in Committee on the Bill so far, and much of the talking has been done by Members from the Government side. The Minister for Europe spent an hour carefully summing up the points made by Members of all parties. That was a proper consideration in Committee of a treaty of fundamental importance. Once the treaty is signed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made absolutely clear, there is no way back except with the nuclear bomb of repealing the treaty in its entirety.
We have sat in Committee for three days. Each day we have started late—almost as late as 6 pm—and we have ended at 10 pm. I am not a zealot who says that we must discuss everything endlessly and that a minority should be allowed to obstruct Government business, but the Single European Act 1985 had 17.5 hours discussion in Committee, and that discussion was clearly subject to filibuster and obstruction by opponents of the treaty. I understand that up to an hour on each occasion was taken up with points of order, and clear delaying tactics were used. The Government's justification for introducing a guillotine was clear under "Erskine May", as my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said.
An extremely useful document from the Public Information Office of the House of Commons goes further and says:
The guillotine is not lightly used, and is not applied without reason. The usual reason is to counter delaying tactics … amounting, in the government's view, to obstruction.
We have not had that in the 12 hours consideration of the Bill in Committee. I have listened to contributions from Members on both sides, and they have been constructive. I made one contribution myself. It is hardly as though certain hon. Members had constantly been getting up to obstruct the Government's purpose. So constructive were the contributions that it took the Minister for Europe an hour to sum up on the first occasion.
As a new Member, I wanted to find out whether 12 hours was a long time to consider the Bill in Committee. After all, we are only dealing with a treaty that we cannot do anything with. The motion will mean that we have considered it in Committee for less than 20 hours in total.
I looked up the other Bills that have been considered in this Session.The Finance Bill had 36.5 hours consideration in Committee, and that was not a Committee of the whole House, as it was not a measure of constitutional significance and parts of it can be repealed if the House so wishes; the Bank of England Bill had 30 hours consideration in Committee; and this Bill has had 12.
We heard sedentary interventions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—or perhaps I should call him the Minister for beef on the bone and vitamin B6, as he has shown his contempt for the ability of the British people to make their own decisions and could be an embodiment of the nanny state. He spoke about the poll tax; when that legislation was before the House there had been 16 Committee sittings and 13 clauses had been considered before the Government introduced the guillotine motion. Indeed, after that guillotine motion there were a further 18 sittings. If that is the precedent that the Government are citing today, it is a pretty shabby and self-evidently thin one to present to the House on a measure of constitutional significance.
It was 110 years ago that Sir William Harcourt warned that great
constitutional measures might be pushed through the House in a fortnight when the guillotine procedure was first introduced … All our parliamentary safeguards are now swept away.
Sir William was talking about the theoretical possibility of the disestablishment of the Church of England. We are faced here with a treaty which, once ratified by Parliament, we can do nothing more about in this place. The warning that Sir William gave 110 years ago is a real warning today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about joining the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in opposing previous guillotine motions. On those occasions, the right hon. Gentleman was on the other side of the debate. On 22 February 1977, the right hon. Gentleman will find that he was voting on a guillotine measure on the Wales Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's principles seem to change, depending on which side of the Chamber he is sitting.
We are faced with a treaty of profound importance. In discussions about defence, I have talked about the progressive framing of a common defence policy—a significant Government concession. We have been discussing that policy in Committee at the same time as Defence Ministers of the United Kingdom, Germany and France have given instructions to their aerospace industries to produce proposals by 31 March for the reunification of a European aerospace industry.
There is an agenda of stealth and we are seeing it implemented before our eyes. The Government are forcing through decisions by cutting short discussions in Committee. At the same time, significant issues are running in tandem which are fundamentally changing the United Kingdom's position in the world, in Europe and in the United States. These issues are not being discussed because there is no opportunity to do so in the House.
We were in the middle of discussing qualified majority voting when the motion was put before the House. We heard the Foreign Secretary talking about a mandate from the electorate. He referred to the trust that it had been given and talked about the social chapter. The right hon. Gentleman did not set out the Government's policies on QMV. I accept that he promised to try to extend QMV in four areas, but he succeeded only in one: employment policy. The right hon. Gentleman conceded that there

were 14 other areas on which the British electorate had no idea that it was being asked to vote on 1 May, including public health.
We had to listen to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is turning into a pretty impressive food fascist. What we must endure from the hon. Gentleman is what the House and the Government will be able to do nothing about when faced with a diktat from the majority of member states of the European Union. We shall not have time to discuss these issues. We are left with the possibility of only about seven hours of debate in Committee.
The details of the treaty are not understood outside this place. I thought that we were sent to the House to get into the nitty-gritty of these issues. How can we expect our constituents to get to grips with these issues and understand them? It is a task which is virtually impossible except for those of us who are prepared to go through the detail, with the time to do so.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend said that people outside the House—the electorate, Mr. and Mrs. average citizen—do not understand what the issue is all about. Why, then, does every public opinion poll on entry into the single currency and further integration into Europe—the development of a federal state—show a substantial majority against? I believe that our people fundamentally understand the matter. That is why I believe that the House needs more time to explore the issues.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend is right to a degree. People have an instinctive understanding of the issues, but it cannot be a detailed understanding. They do not have the time to go through it. I worked in the Foreign Office for 18 months. Getting to grips with and preparing for the Committee on this legislation, working it through detail by detail, took far longer than what I did there. It deals with vital issues of national interest, especially defence and qualified majority voting. Hon. Members will identify issues of special concern to them.

Mr. Winterton: Is not one of the great problems that the House and the people outside whom we have the honour to represent face that people such as the Foreign Secretary—for whose manner of dealing with the matter in the past I have had immense respect and who before the general election was strongly anti-Europe—are now so positively pro-Europe?

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. We have watched most Labour Members turn themselves upside down on European policy not once, twice or three times, but four or five times in the past three decades. They are victims of fashion. They have no idea or understanding of where the basic interests of the United Kingdom lie. That is why they can table a measure to curtail discussion in Committee.
It is surely our duty to examine the Bill in detail constructively. We have not obstructed the Government. We have made proper progress on the Bill in Committee, yet we are now presented with a timetable motion with no warning, no suggestion through the usual channels that our guys are taking too long. It was suddenly banged down after we had made consistent progress over three


days. We were into the fourth day of discussion of serious issues. We were discussing qualified majority voting. We were taking part in constructive debate. It would have been fair enough to table the motion if no progress was being made, if the Opposition had been obstructing debate, but we were not. Conservative Members took care to ensure that there would be no grounds for the Government to make such a charge.
As a new Member, I have seen the House treated with contempt month after month since my arrival at the beginning of May. When the Government treat the House with contempt, they treat the people with contempt. We are told that nanny knows best. In the end, the children will grow up and they will understand what has been done to them in this House.

Mr. John Hayes: I am pleased to have been present for a good part of our deliberations on this subject, because it is a matter of great significance and importance to the House and the nation. It is now clear that the Government do not see it that way. If they did, they would not have tabled the guillotine motion.
I can do no better than amplify the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I, too, went to "Erskine May". As a new Member, I sought guidance. I have not the experience, wit or charm of the Foreign Secretary. I am a humble patriot and a representative of ordinary men and women who value their freedom and independence. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has already suggested, "Erskine May" describes the use of the guillotine as
the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities".
It goes on to say that the harshness of the procedure is
to some extent mitigated either by consultation between the party leaders or in the Business Committee".
Has there been appropriate and proper consultation between the party leaders on the tonight's guillotine? I suggest that there has not. The introduction of this guillotine has been exercised with ruthless disregard not only for the House but for the subject of the debate.
After looking at "Erskine May", I considered the precedent for the use of guillotines. In this regard, I refer hon. Members to the debate on 1 July 1986, when the then right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, now a Labour peer, Lord Peter Shore, debated the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—not the one that we are dealing with today, but an earlier incarnation. On that occasion, he argued forcefully against the use of the guillotine. What grounds did he use? He said that the Bill was:
not just another Bill relating to our domestic affairs … it is a Bill that directly affects the power of Parliament.
What is special about the Bill is that it gives legislative effect to a treaty concluded with other nations—the member states of the EEC—and upon whose institutions it confers additional legislative powers. Once passed, this measure cannot be repealed by a subsequent Parliament, unless that Parliament is prepared to tear up the underlying treaty itselr".—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol.100, c.937.]
Precisely the same words could be used in tonight's debate. I am sure that Lord Shore would share the same opinion about the Government's behaviour tonight.
After studying "Erskine May" and precedent, I sought an explanation for the Government's extraordinary course of action. I studied the evidence given by the Foreign Secretary to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 4 November 1997. Of course, much of the loss of power which the Amsterdam treaty offers to the British people relates to the extension of qualified majority voting and subsequent loss of our veto. The right hon. Gentleman said of that:
The use of the veto should only be exercised in circumstances of gravity and importance. The veto should not be exercised in circumstances which are frivolous or marginal.
The treaty will, however, reduce the powers of this sovereign state to veto legislation and it will extend to the procedures which allow for QMV in a range of areas. Perhaps those areas could be judged frivolous or marginal. Let us test them. Is employment policy frivolous and marginal? Is public health policy frivolous? What about equal opportunities—perhaps that is a little more frivolous, but I will not comment too much on that. [Interruption.] No, I do not want to distress the Stepford wives—there are only a couple of them here, but I do not want to upset them. Is regional policy frivolous and marginal? Is customs policy frivolous and marginal? Of course not. None of those policies is frivolous or marginal.
We have already heard a great deal about the treaty in respect of those policies, but I want to explore the fundamental truth about the treaty—it is a significant attack on British sovereignty. The Daily Telegraph—which I imagine is not widely read by Labour Members—[Interruption.] I look at The Guardian now and again—for the sport. The Daily Telegraph described the treaty as a degree of constitutional masochism and a
self-mutilation of our democratic institutions.
A parallel difficulty in assessing the nature and extent of that mutilation is caused by the fact that the injuries are obscured by the coded nature of the language used to describe the problem.
The nature of the European debate is deliberately obscured and the plain facts distorted either by dressing them up in esoteric rhetoric or by the Euro-technique of using bizarre and colourful metaphors. We all know what they are: we are on a train or in a fast car or a slow car—presumably not a racing car, in the light of current circumstances. In short, we are always on some sort of journey to a pre-ordained destination over which we have little choice. It is rather like going on holiday to a place that one knows little about and will not especially like; the assumption is that that is the only place available to spend the vacation.
The result of this esoteric European debate is that the ordinary man and woman in the street feels isolated and remote from it, powerless to do anything about it. The saddest phrase that a democrat can hear is one that we frequently hear about the debate on Europe: "We don't understand it, so we leave it to other people. We aren't sure what it means, so we have to leave it to the experts." When a democrat hears such expressions from ordinary voters he—or she—should be very sad indeed.
Now, let us examine in detail what the treaty actually does. We heard in earlier speeches some discussion of unemployment. In that context, I want to draw particular attention to article 13, with which hon. Members will, no doubt, be familiar. The inclusion of religion, belief and


sexual orientation in the article—we are back to equal opportunities here—establishes a principle which may be given legal effect by the European Court of Justice. That could mean that Church schools could lose their freedom to employ only staff who support the ethos of the school. Faith-based voluntary organisations in the private sector could also be affected. Article 13 could restrict their freedom of association and their ability to employ only people who profess and practise in accordance with the organisation's beliefs and that, of course, does not apply to Christians alone. Employment law changes created by article 13 could have dramatic effects on those areas.
We have also heard about the worrying extension of the powers of the European Court of Justice over a range of other areas, and the greater powers for the secretary-general of the Commission, with little or no accountability, in foreign and security policy. There is also, of course, the matter that we were discussing before the guillotine motion was introduced—the significant extension of qualified majority voting.
Is this all in line with what we were promised when we decided to join the European Community? Of course not. Hon. Members will remember what happened at the time. As a young Conservative, I campaigned for a yes vote. I am prepared to bare my soul now and admit that. I was duped along with all the rest.
Indeed, I am still in favour of an association of sovereign nations, a free-trade Europe with countries combining and co-operating to get the best possible deal for their citizens. Of course Conservatives are pro-Europe—[Laughter.]—but pro-Europe in the sense and the spirit in which the people of Britain voted for Europe in the first place.
We were expressly told that there was no possibility of federalism. Do we all remember? To illustrate, I shall quote from the document that was distributed at the time, "Britain's New Deal in Europe". I remind Labour Members that many of them will have helped to distribute that document and used it to defend the idea of a yes vote in the referendum.
"Britain's New Deal in Europe" says
No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and a British Parliament. The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member Governments. It is the Council of Ministers, not the Common Market officials, who take important decisions".>
It is hard to believe that now.
The document continued:
These decisions can only be taken if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be considered to be against British interests".
We have travelled a long and sorry road since then, and all without the consent of the British people.
The Foreign Secretary listed the items to which qualified majority voting is being extended. They include employment guidelines, employment incentive measures, social exclusion, sexual discrimination, public health, transparency, countering fraud, statistics, the data protection advisory body, outermost regions and Customs co-operation. He failed to tell us that the Amsterdam

treaty allows states to make general agreements and to outline broad policy, and then to thrash out the detail under qualified majority voting. That category includes services and copyright negotiation, approximation of the police and the judiciary, and the common foreign and security policy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time) Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Hayes: I was grateful for that interruption to gather my notes and thoughts.
The social chapter is also in that category. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe drew attention to Jacques Delors's admiration for our opt-out, and his acceptance that, in areas such as inward investment, it gave us a significant advantage over our European counterparts.
It is worth returning briefly to the issue of copyright. The resulting agreement from the treaty on copyright seems to have been decided by qualified majority voting. If so, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not noticed that yet. It remains to be seen what long-term effect that will have on the importance of the German-based European copyright centre at the expense of the national office in the United Kingdom. I suspect that the London office will go out of business, and that will be another item of bad news for Great Britain.
The single currency has also been mentioned in the debate. I do not want to indulge in repetition. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said that repetition added nothing to the debate. I was reminded of how spiteful and vicious people in the centre of politics often are. People with strong, committed opinions on the left and the right are often accused of those vices, but some of the most vicious people are in the political centre. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I had to remind him of that truth.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend has perhaps chosen the one Liberal Democrat in the House who does not merit such a description.

Mr. Hayes: Indeed, I can add little to that.
Much has been said about the economic consequences of the single currency, whereas little has been said about the symbolism of the single currency and the transfer of Britain's gold reserves to Frankfurt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time motion, and not these wider issues.

Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. Had we not had this restriction of time, we would have been able to develop these issues more fully. It is because the debate has been curtailed in such a ruthless, cavalier fashion that we will not have time to explore these matters more fully.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Foreign Secretary referred time and again to the guillotine motion


introduced by the Conservative Government on the community charge legislation: more affectionately known as the poll tax. The introduction of a guillotine on that measure probably contributed to the defeat of the Conservative party in 1997. Should not thought be given to the fact that a guillotine is now being introduced on a matter of considerable importance, even though it has not been properly considered by the House? In the foreseeable future could not this guillotine lead to the defeat of new Labour and the transfer to government of the Conservative party?

Mr. Hayes: I can tell my hon. Friend that hon. Members and the wider public take a dim view of such a technique. When Parliament is scrutinised independently and empirically by the electorate, it is that sort of technique which tends to attract most criticism and contempt. As my hon. Friend suggests, Governments with large majorities and Prime Ministers with dodgy advisers—I see that the Minister without Portfolio is in his place—sometimes run to excess. I would not say that about the previous Government, but it may be a general principle.
I shall deal with the single currency and its symbolism in terms of time. We should not undersell, underplay or undervalue the principle of national identity. It is inclusive in that it brings a nation together and ensures that what unites us is greater than what divides us. We toy with national identity at our peril because, to use Blairite rhetoric, to do so would disempower the British people, not all of whom are winners or at the pinnacle of society or can reach the apex of their chosen profession or pursuit. However, they can share in the success, glory and progress of the country as a whole because they share a common national identity. We give that away in the treaty at great loss to those people especially.
I do not know whether it was through a lack of wit or a lack of will that the Government decided to sign the Amsterdam treaty. I cannot believe that it was through a lack of wit so it must have been an express lack of will. The Government have undoubtedly taken a profound step towards European political integration. I was concerned about that and I could barely believe that the Government would do it because I am a decent chap and wanted to believe the best of them so I tabled a couple of written questions to see whether the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister had left the negotiations early. I thought that perhaps the Foreign Secretary had popped out to place a bet. Not at all: he was there throughout, even when he was being stitched up by the Spanish Prime Minister on opt-ins and opt-outs:—so there is no excuse. Their action will dilute our national identity, endanger our national destiny and remove the exercise of political power further and further from ordinary, decent, law-abiding patriotic people such as those whom I and other hon. Members represent.

Mr. William Cash: Some debates on this subject are becoming a little too friendly. There is a sort of convention in the House to the effect that, "Well, these things happen. Sometimes we put on guillotines and sometimes it happens the other way round. We do not need to worry too much about it. We can go through the formalities of debate but allow the whole matter to drift along." I do not feel at all friendly towards this guillotine

motion. What is more, I do not feel at all friendly towards the Government. This is a creepy-crawly guillotine motion and it is being introduced in circumstances that, by any reasonable standards, do not warrant it.
I have heard my hon. Friends describing the history of the guillotine. It is crystal clear that the Foreign Secretary refused twice to reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) as to why, in relation to the Single European Act, he—the Foreign Secretary—was opposed to the idea to a guillotine, along with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, yet, in relation to this Bill, the Government assume a degree of hypocrisy. They know perfectly well that the Single European Act was primarily about trade and a single market, whereas this Bill is about government.
The Bill is about the extension of those parts of the Maastricht treaty that raise the question I frequently asked during the Maastricht debate: who governs Britain? As I said to the Minister of State in the opening debate on the Bill, anybody with even a semblance of knowledge of the European Union knows perfectly well that the Amsterdam treaty is a gross extension of the integration of Europe and our absorption into a process that the Government intend will lead to the extinction of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. They know that, just as they know their devolution Bills fall into the same category: they are all part of a continuing process of the creation of a federal Europe and this Bill is part and parcel of that process. Therefore, the Bill is, on an accumulative basis, a Bill of the highest constitutional importance and under no circumstances can the precedents for a guillotine lead us to any conclusion other than that it should not have been imposed.
The comparison between the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty is irrelevant, because the Maastricht treaty was about government. The only positive thing I can say about the previous Government's attitude and their record on the Maastricht treaty is that the one thing they did right was not to impose a guillotine on the debate on that treaty. Now, because we had those debates and went into the issues thoroughly, people can form a judgment about who was right and who was wrong. There is a deliberate conspiracy to prevent the people of this country from knowing the full extent of what is contained in the Amsterdam treaty. That is why the guillotine is being imposed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have immense regard for my hon. Friend and his knowledge of all the legislation relating to the European Unio, but is he not being a little generous in his comments about my party—our party—when in government and its action in imposing a guillotine on the Single European Act, which limited discussion? At that time, we accepted assurances from the leadership of our party that the light of experience shows were not worth the breath with which they were uttered. We have been saddled with a reduction in sovereignty, which the then Prime Minister assured us would not happen. Surely guillotines prevent the sort of discussion that is necessary if we are to explore in detail precisely what is involved in legislation.

Mr. Cash: I am bound to say that I have believed for a long time that the single market arrangements have not worked as intended. There were some profoundly


misleading aspects to that legislation, but, to return to my main point, as far as I am concerned, the Single European Act was primarily about trading relations with Europe, not about the governmental functions that are demonstrable in the Maastricht treaty and in the Amsterdam treaty. There is a distinction and it is important to make that point, but I do not wish to return to the subject of the Single European Act too often. I have reservations about it. It should have been reformed, and the Amsterdam conference would have provided a reasonable opportunity to do so. Of course, the Government had not the slightest intention of doing anything of the sort.
I have noticed that, of the amendments selected for debate, some 60 per cent. are in my name. It was essential to have a significant number of groupings in order to have a proper debate. I am absolutely clear that that debate is being frustrated despite the fact that there has been no filibuster. The Minister knows that he has not accused us of a filibuster; I have not picked up in the Lobbies any suggestion that there has been one. No serious commentator has suggested that we have made any attempt to frustrate proper discussion of the Bill.
In the Amsterdam treaty, the Government signed a protocol, which is binding on the Government, to provide for proper scrutiny by national Parliaments. As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation—which has been extremely critical of the manner in which national parliamentary scrutiny has been conducted-I find it unbelievable that we should be discussing a treaty that itself contains provisions for the improvement of national scrutiny, yet applying a principle that will deprive us of the opportunity of doing so. That is disgraceful. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it when he replies at the end of the debate. There is no filibuster; we are seeking to have proper national scrutiny—yet the Government are denying us even what is contained in the Amsterdam treaty as a matter of principle.
It is astonishing that the Committee proceedings have been almost literally unreported in the media by any newspaper or television or radio programme. It is astonishing that a matter of such importance should be ignored by the media. There is no proper means of communication. As I said in the first debate, the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. There is evidence of that with the proceedings on this Bill.
We forced the previous Government—I make no apology for it—into serious debate of the Maastricht treaty. In fairness to the Government of the day, they gave us the debates we wanted. I tabled about 210 amendments to ensure proper discussion. However, because there was a relatively small majority and because, I think, there was a feeling in the country that huge issues of constitutional principle were involved, those debates were reported on a continuous and daily basis.
If we were to compare the governmental functions transferred under Maastricht—vital and massive as they were—with, for example, the extension of the legal area and the vast new powers being conferred on the European Court of Justice, we could conclude only that it is an absolute disgrace to hear hon. Members and Government spokesmen suggesting that this is not an important Bill. If they were to claim that they had not suggested that,

I would have to ask why they would want to impose a guillotine on something they have now admitted is important. There is an inherent contradiction in their position.
As other hon. Members have said, the treaty is intended to be irrevocable. It is intended to become part and parcel of our legal framework. It is beyond belief that we should not be renegotiating the treaty. I know that my right hon. Friends had it in mind that at some time we would have a referendum on the treaty. I believe—I think that the huge majority of people in this country share this view—that we should have had, and should yet have, a proper referendum on the Maastricht treaty and, indeed, on the consolidated treaty on European Union. To confine a referendum to the single currency is to duck many of the arguments to which the British people are entitled to give their consent.
I am particularly concerned that my new clause on renegotiation should be discussed. It says that the Bill shall not come into force until there is a new European conference, at which the state of the EU would be discussed and appropriate amendments would be tabled to determine the nature and extent to which renegotiation is necessary. From listening to what Labour Members said when they were in opposition, I know that many of them believe that aspects of the consolidated treaty on European Union, the Maastricht treaty and now the Amsterdam treaty require renegotiation.
Earlier today, we had a debate on fisheries policy. I heard people talking about reform of the common agricultural policy. How the hell is it possible to argue that we must reform those policies, which are subject to treaty arrangements, and then say that we are not going to renegotiate them? Are we to engage simply in a cherry-picking operation and renegotiate only things that are unimportant? Should we not consider the state of the EU as a whole?
In the light of today's discussions, I am driven to consider which are the subjects covered by the groups of amendments that remain for the Committee to debate. After qualified majority and the co-decision procedure, which is what we are currently on, is institutional change and flexibility.
As I said to the Prime Minister when he returned from Luxembourg the other day, is there not an inherent contradiction between his claiming that he should be included in all the discussions on this strange committee entitled Euro X and the fact that the Amsterdam treaty contains provisions on flexibility, which is why he is being excluded? As the Commission said some years ago, economic and monetary union is the best form of flexibility yet devised—and it is applying the principles of flexibility to exclude us from the discussions.
I do not have any truck with monetary union, but there is a fundamental contradiction between the Government's position on Euro X and the flexibility provisions. When the new grouping comes up shortly, we should have the opportunity to discuss flexibility with respect not merely to monetary union, but to all the other matters in the treaty on European Union. Flexibility is a generalised concept. It is intended to apply across the board, but I calculate that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will be given only one and a half hours to discuss that flexibility, the institutional changes and the free movement of persons and citizenship.
That is an outrage. The people of this country are entitled to know the views of hon. Members, who have been elected to represent them in Parliament, on fundamental questions that affect their freedoms. I am not asking for much. I ask for something small: that we be given a chance to have a proper discussion of matters that are of fundamental interest to our constituents. It is outrageous that the Government should have introduced a guillotine motion on a Bill of this constitutional magnitude, deliberately to deceive the British people into thinking that it is not as important as it really is.
There is a substantial irony in the origins of the guillotine procedure. Hon. Members may remember—or may at least have read—that it was introduced to deal with the Irish question. It was brought in to crush Parnell, who was seeking to obtain home rule for the Irish. The then Government were seeking to impose amended criminal law in Ireland, which Parnell and others opposed. Now, by an extraordinary irony, the procedure is being used to prevent us from retaining our sovereignty, which is effectively our home rule. It is being used to frustrate our sovereignty rather than enhance it. That is outrageous.
I have not heard one word from the Foreign Secretary about the fundamental principles that underpin the guillotine motion. He made a short speech full of specious and irrelevant nonsense about precedents and the Single European Act, but he is a man of great intelligence and perception and he knows perfectly well just how important the Bill is. The Government have adopted a minimalist approach and have managed, through the media, to spin doctor the message that the Bill does not really matter at all. That is one of the greatest deceits perpetrated on the British people for generations because the treaty and the Bill are hugely important, not merely politically but constitutionally. It is therefore essential that the guillotine motion is opposed.
Instead of chattering on the Front Bench, the Minister of State owes it to the House to give a proper explanation, which the Foreign Secretary denied us, of why this constitutional outrage is being perpetrated and why the guillotine is being imposed against all the relevant precedents.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have attended the Committee's sittings assiduously. I would say that I have been here for every minute of every sitting and have spoken on every occasion. If one were to check Hansard, I reckon that one would find that I spoke for between five and seven minutes each time. I did not filibuster but made the points required of me carefully and cogently. I believe that to be the case, because, had it not been, I am sure that the Chairman at any given time would have called me to order. Indeed, had it not been the case, Labour Members would not have sought to intervene to make their own cogent remarks. There has been no filibustering on this Bill.
The fact is that it was the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who spoke for half an hour, and the Minister of State for nearly a full hour.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but the Minister of State was giving the Committee proper

credit for the contributions made, and he treated the Committee with respect. I suspect that it is not his fault that we are debating the guillotine motion.

Mr. Swayne: That is indeed the case. I do not begrudge the Minister of State his hour. He was well worth listening to. In that hour, he strenuously attempted to deal with every point made by my colleagues.
I disagree with much of the Minister's analysis, but it was entirely appropriate that he should have taken an hour to express it, just as it was entirely appropriate that I should have spoken to three groups of amendments, because, during the general election campaign, anxieties on the subject matter dealt with by the Bill were expressed, entirely unsolicited, on virtually every doorstep in my constituency.
The people who expressed their concerns speak in this Chamber through me. That is the very basis of a representative democracy. This timetable motion, however, will deny them that opportunity. After Front Benchers have had their say, there will be very little time for Back Benchers to speak to the Bill.
We have a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom, although, I grant, we do not have a written constitution. We generally do not offer our people referendums, or include mandatory thresholds in those referendums. We also do not, unlike France or Germany, have a constitutional court. We do, however, have a constitutional convention, which states that, on constitutional matters, any hon. Member can have his say, without having written to the Speaker and hoping like hell that he will get a chance to speak. The convention is that any hon. Member can have his say by attending the Bill's Committee stage, which will be taken on the Floor of the House. Today's motion will ride roughshod over that convention.
It is all very well for Ministers to say, "This guillotine is your fault. If you had treated the Bill's Committee stage with some respect and not abused it, we would not have been driven to protect our parliamentary timetable for other Bills with this motion", but it was entirely disingenuous of the Secretary of State to say that the Bill has been debated on five days, because the debate on the Bill's Second Reading was entirely irrelevant to today's motion. Moreover, as he himself said, today he made another Second Reading speech. He said that the treaty will protect our borders, guarantee subsidiarity and implement Labour's election manifesto pledge to implement the social chapter. However, only by going through the Bill's detail in Committee will we discover that the treaty will do nothing of the sort. That is precisely why the Government want to kill the Bill's Committee stage; they want debate on the Bill to be silenced.
It is a matter not only of silencing hon. Members, who have every right to speak, but of using smoke and mirrors and of covering up the Second Reading speeches that have been made. A Committee of the whole House has debated the Bill for a total of 12 hours, which represents about three hours per group of amendments. That strikes me as entirely reasonable. If the Government are concerned about their legislative programme, why are they not prepared for the Committee to sit after 10 o'clock? Is the matter not of sufficient constitutional importance to do so? Do Ministers really need their beauty sleep so badly? I wonder. Why has every sitting of the Committee, with one exception, been preceded by a ministerial statement?
Many hon. Members have mentioned the Single European Act 1985 in this debate. That Act was debated for three full days. As I said, the Secretary of State was disingenuous when he said that the Bill had been debated on five days. That does not mean that it was debated for five days. In fact, it was debated for 12 hours.

Dr. Rudi Vis: The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for seven minutes.

Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. I have made the points that I wished to make, so I shall take his cue to resume my seat.

Mr. Graham Brady: However helpful or unhelpful Labour Members may be, I cannot promise that I shall be as compliant as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in taking cues on how long I should speak.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. The reason for that is behaviour such as that of the Government this evening. It is a privilege to follow so many thoughtful and passionate speeches from my hon. Friends, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made an outstanding contribution to the debate. I echo his point that the standing of the House of Commons is at stake when the Government treat Parliament in such a way as to demonstrate their disregard for democracy.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was particularly important. I only wish that all new Members elected on 1 May could have heard it. I fear that many new Members do not have sufficient regard for the history, tradition and importance of this place as the guarantor of the freedom of the British people. My hon. Friend's speech brings that home.
It is desperately important that we should all remember why we are here. I am tempted to say that it is particularly important for new Labour Members, some of whom were not expecting to be elected on 1 May, but found themselves here—some with small majorities—and who may not be here for very long. Of course, we are all here for as long as our electors choose, but I fear that some who were elected on 1 May do not have sufficient regard for the institution of which we have the privilege to be Members, and that is most regrettable.
The low standing of the House of Commons has been compounded in recent months and years. I make no bones about it. Many questions and problems have been raised. Many people take the view that, at times during the past few years, the Conservative Government did not maintain the highest standards. However, what I find particularly worrying in the arguments for the guillotine motion that have been advanced rather sparingly in just one speech from the Government is the suggestion that, if the previous Government did it, it must be all right.
That is reflected in the behaviour of the new Government over the past few months. The formula one crisis involving Mr. Ecclestone gave the impression—

however unjustified—that the Government may have changed their policy because they received a donation of a considerable sum of money.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I know that the hon. Gentleman has newly arrived, but I recall that, in the last Parliament, the then Conservative Government, who had a majority of 29, introduced 82 guillotine motions. I cannot remember how many there were in the 1987 Parliament, but they were awfully frequent, given the Government's majority of 100. In the 1983 Parliament, the Government had a majority of 144, and they tried to shut us up on every possible occasion.
This is the first one in the current Parliament. I admit that I have been away for part of the time, so will the hon. Gentleman explain why a Government are not allowed to get their business through? What was sauce for the goose from 1983 to 1997 is surely sauce for the gander from 1997 onwards—probably to 2010.

Mr. Brady: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the trouble to make my point for me. That is precisely the argument that I find so distressing and unsettling.

Dr. Vis: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Mr. Ecclestone gave £14 million to the Conservative party? If so, will he confirm that that might be related to the absence of any legislation about tobacco?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is not going to confirm anything of that nature. He is going to confine his remarks to the motion.

Mr. Brady: I am struggling to do so—although Labour Members appear to be engaging in a determined filibuster by raising matters that have no relevance whatever to the guillotine motion.
I was referring, in my valid point, to how the standing of Parliament is threatened by the behaviour in which the Government are engaging. This guillotine motion is an important instance of that. It adds to the distressing and unfortunate public view that Parliament is worthless, that it no longer represents the people of this country or has a genuine democratic function.
I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary in his place again—almost by magic—because I am about to refer to a point that he made in his opening speech. [HON. MEMBERS."Go on, then."] I thank Labour Members for their helpfulness in trying to move me on to my point.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that the Foreign Secretary gave two novel justifications for the guillotine motion in his introductory speech—first, that unanimity is required on the Opposition Benches for such business, and secondly that a very large majority on Second Reading obviates the need for a proper Committee.
I think that a third very worrying and novel justification was advanced. It was suggested that, because the Government won a large majority on 1 May, there was no need for a proper Committee stage. Democracy does not end in this country when we have a general election. It is important that we recognise that democracy continues through the Parliament. We are sent here as


representatives of our constituents, not merely to implement what may be in a rather sparse election manifesto, of whichever party.
I am tempted to say that, on 1 May, just as all Labour voters may have thought and known that they were voting for incorporation of the social chapter, they all thought and believed that they were voting against a cut in benefits for single mothers. The Foreign Secretary's argument does not stand up when he is prepared to be so selective about which parts of Labour's manifesto and which pledges are considered sacrosanct, and which ones can be thrown away without regard. That is of great concern to hon. Members.
Suggestions, especially by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), that the Bill has been filibustered need to be refuted. There has been no filibuster. Indeed, most hon. Members would agree that good progress has been made. In 12 hours, we have spent, on average, three hours on each group of amendments.
I make no criticism of the Minister of State, but he made the longest speech of the proceedings when he spoke for almost an hour in winding up. The second longest speech was from another Labour Member. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) spoke for 30 minutes—far longer than any Conservative Member's speech. If the Government are contending that their own Members are filibustering business, it is rather a bizarre accusation to lay at our door.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone spoke about the origins of the guillotine motion in 1887 in proceedings on the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. It is particularly telling that Gladstone called the proposal
a further abridgement of Parliamentary liberty".
That was in the days when we had a Liberal party which was worthy of the name, which we no longer do.
The speech by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife suggested that his party is also unworthy of the name of democrat. It has not only given away any claim to represent the liberal traditions of the House and British democracy, but it has given up its claim to represent any true democracy by trying to frustrate proper debate on the Bill.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: How many of the guillotine motions imposed by the previous Conservative Government in the last Parliament would the hon. Gentleman have opposed?

Mr. Brady: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I was not here, and it is difficult to answer a hypothetical question. I can say that one should give serious thought to a request to support a guillotine motion on a constitutional measure of the importance of the Bill. When we debate legislation that will give away power that belongs to the House, to this country and to the British people, who are sovereign, we do not have the right to throw it casually away. That is the nub of the matter.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the critical issue is the ability of this Parliament to restore or repeal legislation such as the Bill? Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) should be more selective about guillotine measures, because the legislation is of especial constitutional importance. It is

not even a domestic matter, but involves legislation that could not be subsequently repealed: that is the fundamental point.

Mr. Brady: To quote the Prime Minister for perhaps the only time, "My hon. Friend is absolutely right." I cannot add anything further to his point.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to reflect on the matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). When we debated the Maastricht treaty in the last Parliament—unfortunately, my hon. Friend was not here—we sat night after night and day after day, democratically and without a guillotine motion, to discuss matters of grave constitutional importance. We are now being denied that right, and I fully support the comments that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Brady: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
As I was saying, it is bizarre that the only points of any substance have been made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and not by the Foreign Secretary. The hon. and learned Member appeared to ridicule our demand for a referendum on the Bill, which made me wonder whether he thinks that the treaty is more or less important than the legislation that will establish the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. Is the treaty more or less important than what the Prime Minister referred to as the creation of a sort of parish council?
I believe that the treaty is more important. We had referendums on the Scottish and Welsh issues, which are less significant constitutionally than the Bill, because it will transfer power out of the United Kingdom. However, the hon. and learned Member does not believe that it would be appropriate to engage in the same consultation of the British people as was granted to the people of Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described the Amsterdam treaty as a mouse of a treaty. In those circumstances, why do the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends attach such importance to it? Perhaps they believe that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was wholly unfounded.

Mr. Brady: I make no bones about the fact that I do not share the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe on that matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not answer my point about whether it is more important to establish a parish council in Edinburgh or Swansea than to transfer massive new powers to Brussels, which is outside the United Kingdom. That is the central point.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife also alleged that there had been repetition in the speeches by Conservative Members, but that does not have any foundation. He has only recently faced any danger of repetition by Liberal Democrat Members, because he has been alone in his place for most of the debate. He claimed that his loneliness on the Liberal Democrat Benches showed the confidence that his Back-Bench colleagues have in his abilities. For much of the evening, that confidence clearly has been total.

Mr. Hayes: I wish to refer to the Government. Labour Members have been remarkably silent; not one, other than


the Foreign Secretary, has spoken so far. Are we witnessing not only a deliberate attempt to suppress the views of the House as a whole on a major constitutional issue, but the use of the iron discipline of the Government Whips to prevent Labour Members from saying anything on the motion?

Mr. Brady: Again, it would be a great cause for concern if Labour Members with a view on a matter of such constitutional significance were dissuaded from speaking their minds.

Dr. Vis: We have heard a lot about filibustering. I have been sitting here for an hour, and the last three Conservative Members have repeated one another. Why does the hon. Gentleman not speak to the motion? We have heard nothing about it. He should speak his mind, rather than saying he is not filibustering. I have heard 17 times that he is not filibustering.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) certainly is not filibustering, because I would stop him if he were doing so.

Mr. Brady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have seen no evidence, either this evening or on other occasions, that the Chair has been anything other than punctilious in controlling the House. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) has made two lengthy interventions during my speech, which leads me to wonder whether he, rather than my hon. Friends, is trying to filibuster.
It is important to stand up for the rights of Back Benchers in these important matters, so that we do not limit our consideration merely to what our Front-Bench colleagues say. The Government's attitude to Parliament, which we see again in this measure—as we have seen so often since 1 May—demonstrates a lack of confidence in their own ability to make a case. They are concerned that, if they come here and allow a proper, full debate, their case will not stand up to scrutiny.
The transfer of power that we see in the treaty and in the legislation to enact it is entirely consistent, I would argue, with the behaviour of the Government. They have no regard for the standing of Parliament or for our democracy here, and they are transferring the powers of the British people to undemocratic bodies across the sea. In so doing, they are acting exactly the same as when, in the House, they refuse to allow proper debate. That is why we should oppose the motion.

Mr. Tim Collins: When the Committee's consideration of the Bill was suspended, I was on my feet. When I heard that the Government were rushing through a guillotine motion, I was tempted to ask, "Was it something I said?"
We heard the Foreign Secretary set out rather more substantive reasons for the motion, and I shall confine my remarks to some of the arguments he advanced. The first, and perhaps the most important, argument for any guillotine motion is that the Government have to protect their parliamentary time to ensure the passage of their

business. That is a little curious, given the way in which the Government have handled parliamentary time since their election.
If the Government were concerned about parliamentary time, why did they rush forward with an emergency Budget at a time of widespread and well-acknowledged national prosperity, instead of waiting until November? A great deal of parliamentary time was consumed on a Finance Bill much earlier than was necessary. If there was a shortage of parliamentary time, why was the House dismissed at the end of July and not called back until very nearly November? If there is such a shortage of parliamentary time, why is the House to be dismissed before Christmas and brought back not the week after new year, but the following week?
Indeed, if there is such a shortage of parliamentary time—so much so that a Bill of fundamental constitutional significance cannot be properly debated—surely we should look again, at least temporarily, at the Jopling reforms. I speak as someone who supports those reforms. Lord Jopling, as he now is, is my predecessor. Let us consider the sitting hours of the House and invite it to sit on mornings other than Wednesdays and on more Fridays.
If there is really a profound lack of parliamentary time, the Government can easily provide that time through any of the means that I have identified, but the truth is that there is a lack not of time but of Government will to have debate, and that is a very different matter.
The Foreign Secretary advanced the bizarre argument that some of our points were frivolous, citing as an instance of that frivolity and absurdity the proposition from my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary that it is possible for our European partners to misinterpret an agreement, to isolate us 14 to one and to gang up on us.
I know that there is a state of cordial mutual loathing among members of the Cabinet, but I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary ever speaks to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, at the beginning of the week, said precisely that our partners had misinterpreted and broken an agreement and had ganged up on us 14 to one against our national interest. Perhaps those arguments are not quite so frivolous.
The Foreign Secretary then advanced the mandate argument. That is dangerous territory for him. He said that, because the people had spoken, Conservative Members should not speak; but we have a mandate, too. We were elected to the House on precisely the same basis as Government Members.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Not a lot of you.

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman only ever speaks from a sedentary position. It is very sad that he is not able—or perhaps he is not permitted—to stand up and make a speech. He is a free Member of Parliament, despite what the Whips may tell him. Perhaps he could occasionally contribute from a standing position.
As the hon. Gentleman says that not many of us were elected, let us consider the mandate that the Government secured. They got 42 per cent. of the vote, which is exactly the percentage that I secured in my constituency, so if the Government have a mandate, so do 1. On the share of the vote, we did better, even in this dreadful


election year for us, than the Labour party did in 1983. I do not remember the Labour party saying that it had no mandate to speak in Parliament between 1983 and 1987 and would remain silent. The mandate argument does not work.

Mr. Bermingham: I do not know whether the rule of rewriting history now applies, but I seem to remember participating in the 1983 general election, in which we got 200-plus seats—it was a pretty poor year for us—and the Conservative majority was about 144, whereas we now have a majority of goodness knows what, in the region of 170, with about 418 seats. The hon. Gentleman may have been a bit young in those days, but those of us who were around then know that his figures are wrong. Let us face it: one cannot prove anything by twisting statistics to back up a very poor case.

Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that he has indeed been knocking around for rather longer than I have, but I should point out that our share of the vote in the general election was 31 per cent., while his party's share in 1983 was 28 per cent.
The Foreign Secretary had an even more interesting argument on the mandate. He said that every single person who voted Labour on 1 May knew perfectly well that the Labour party intended to take us into the social chapter on precisely the basis encased in the Bill, with all the consequent implications for the extension of qualified majority voting.
That would have come as a surprise to those who read articles in the Daily Mail and other newspapers earlier this year saying that the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—would take us in only on the basis that we could pick and choose individual measures entirely on their merits. That is not the basis on which the Bill has been introduced, and that is not the treaty that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary brought back from Amsterdam.
The Foreign Secretary argued that there was simply no alternative to the Bill, and that it was a matter of consistency. He said that because Conservative Members had supported guillotines in the past, it was necessary for us to support them now.
If ever a man was on dangerous territory in making an argument about the virtue of consistency, it is the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman used to have a moral objection to nuclear weapons. He now serves as Foreign Secretary in a Government who are deploying Trident. The Foreign Secretary used to have an objection on the ground of sovereignty to the United Kingdom being a member of the European Economic Community. The right hon. Gentleman objected to being in the Common Market. He is now a starry-eyed enthusiast for an ever more federal Europe.
The Foreign Secretary used to believe in mass nationalisation. He now serves in a Government who are carrying out privatisation measures. The right hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the allocation of time motion should be supported on the ground of consistency. He is perhaps one of the most inconsistent politicians that the House has seen for many a long year. His arguments have been dismissed, and so should the motion be.

11 pm

Mr. Gary Streeter: On 13 January 1994, an experienced Member stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and complained that in introducing a timetable motion the then Government showed
a callous disregard for our democratic procedures".
The hon. Gentleman protested
The way in which the Government have tried to force through the business is a contempt of the House.
He added
The procedure that we are now discussing is completely unnecessary. We are using time to discuss the guillotine motion that we could have used to discuss aspects of the Bill which are important to hon. Members.
The hon. Gentleman described the then Government's approach as an "affront to democracy". He attacked the Government's conduct, saying that it had
been wholly reprehensible and unacceptable".—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 384–87.]
That hon. Gentleman was the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), the very person who will respond to the debate on behalf of the Government and force the guillotine on us. On 13 January 1994, the hon. Gentleman was talking about a domestic Bill that could be set aside by later Parliaments; we are talking about an international treaty that cannot be set aside by a subsequent Parliament. What was an "affront to democracy" and a contempt of the House only three years ago is now the very policy that the Minister adopts.
The sad feature is that that background will not trouble the Minister in the slightest—to say one thing one day and do precisely the opposite a little while later. Some might say that such a capacity is a necessary precondition for joining the Government, who are without values and principles.

Mr. Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he voted on the guillotine motion on 13 January 1994?

Mr. Streeter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, it is not our case that it is always wrong for a Government to introduce a guillotine motion. However, when a Government are dealing with a constitutional issue they should proceed with the utmost caution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument.
Some would say that it is a necessary precondition for a Member joining the Government, an Administration without values and principles, to learn quickly to say one thing one day and do the opposite just a while later. Ministers say one thing and do another. Policies that they opposed in opposition are adopted in government. Parliament is treated with that contempt.
We should not even be debating the motion. The Amsterdam treaty is an important constitutional treaty; that is why it has been debated on the Floor of the House. It makes important changes to our relationship with the European Union. It makes changes that cannot easily be undone. As so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, it will give more power to the European Parliament.


It provides for an extension of qualified majority voting. It includes the social chapter and a new employment chapter, which will impose new regulations on British people. It makes new arrangements for border controls and moves us closer to an integrated foreign and security policy. It changes the law on subsidiarity and it gives more power to Presidents of the Commission. All those things, and many more besides, are surely worth more than a cursory glance from the House. We are, after all, elected as a check on the Executive.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I wish to apologise to the shadow Foreign Secretary, to whom I inaccurately attributed a reference to the position of the high representative, as covered by one of the articles of the Amsterdam treaty. I was wrong to do so and I have apologised to him informally; it is only right that I should put the record straight formally.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has given an eloquent, in his terms, justification for his opposition to the guillotine on the Bill on the ground that it raises constitutional issues. Did not the Single European Act raise the same constitutional issues?

Mr. Streeter: The hon. and learned Gentleman apologises in his usual gracious way. He makes an important point, but there are at least two features that distinguish this measure from the Single European Act.
After all that I have said about the importance of the Bill, after only three days the Government have tabled a guillotine motion. It was not even three full days. The first day's debate started not at 3.30 pm but at 5.55 pm; the second at 5.30 pm; the third at 5.50 pm. On each day, at least two hours of debate was lost to Government statements. What should have been 18 hours of debates became 12. We have not had three days but a mere 12 hours.
On each day, the Government did not move a 10 o'clock motion. They did not even table one on any of those days, so cynical and predetermined was their desire to stifle debate. They did not bother because they knew that they would not use it. We had late starts and early endings, a truncated debate from day one. We are driven to the clear conclusion that the Government never wanted a proper examination of the treaty that they brought back from Amsterdam. There are two obvious reasons for that. First, they know that they failed at Amsterdam. They gave away far too many concessions with absolutely nothing in return.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): Will the hon. Gentleman not be as generous as some Conservative Members and at least acknowledge that after I had listened to the debate on the first set of amendments for a day and a half, I spent nearly an hour thoroughly covering the points that had been raised? I resent any suggestion that I have not taken the Bill or the scrutiny of the House seriously.

Mr. Streeter: The Minister makes my point for me. Substantial points were raised to which he needed an hour to respond. It was not filibustering. They were not frivolous points. If they had been, he would not have bothered to reply. He took an hour to reply to a substantive debate.
The Prime Minister told the House on Monday that every country fights for its own interests at European summits. What a pity he did not realise that in June when he went to Amsterdam. No wonder he was more popular at Amsterdam than at Luxembourg. The Government want to stifle democratic debate and proper scrutiny of Bill to cover up their failings at the negotiating table. It is a cynical cover-up from a Government without values or principles.
The second reason why the Government want to curtail debate is because they treat Parliament with contempt. From the moment that they were elected, they have used every trick in the book to avoid debate and bypass scrutiny. The mother of Parliaments has been shuffled off to a retirement home. After a paltry 12 hours of debate, a major constitutional issue has been given the chop.
Throughout their remarks, Labour Members have suggested that Conservative Members have tried to filibuster the debate. Even a brief glance at Hansard confirms that nothing could be further from the truth. In the first three days, only 10 hon. Members spoke for more than 20 minutes: five Conservative Members and five Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who spoke for 30 minutes, though I still do not know what he said.
The Minister took nearly an hour to reply to the first debate, although we do not criticise him for that. It is clear from what I have said that no filibustering has taken place. We have been restrained in the number of amendments that we have tabled. The average length of a Back-Bench contribution in the three days of debate has been 14 minutes. No wrecking tactics have been deployed or points of order raised. We have had a constructive and important debate throughout.
Real progress has been made. We have finished consideration of the first three groups of amendments, and consideration of the fourth group is well under way. The time taken to discuss those amendments averages three hours of debate per group of amendments, which is a reasonable rate of progress on a major constitutional Bill.
Because of the guillotine motion, debate on all the remaining amendments and new clauses will be squeezed into two days—on the Government's record that will become two half-days. We will not be able to scrutinise the Bill and debate the amendments properly. That means that we will be unable to examine fully the extra powers given to the President of the Commission to veto our nominee as Commissioner, which is an important point. We will not be able scrutinise in detail the implications of the new provisions in the treaty that state that all Commissioners must act under the political guidance of the President of the Commission. In effect, that makes those Commissioners members of a European Cabinet.
We will not have time to study properly the extra powers given to Europol. We will be unable to do justice to the new provisions on subsidiarity and proportionality. We will have precious little time to probe the Government again about their disgraceful blunder on the border controls opt-in. There will no real opportunity to consider the extensions of power of the European Court of Justice and its complete lack of reform. We will not have time to discuss the cost to our taxpayers of the inclusion, for the first time in a treaty, of the fact that the European Parliament will be permanently located in both Brussels and Strasbourg.
Those are all important matters, but the truth is that, thanks to the motion, we will not have time to discuss them properly. The Government have cited the Single European Act as a precedent for guillotining a constitutional measure after three days of debate. Well, they are wrong on two counts. In 1986, the debates were much longer each day, so that in three days nearly 20 hours of debate took place, not 12 hours as in this case. Secondly, in 1986, virtually no progress was made in those first three days. Many points of order were raised at the start of each sitting and there was ample evidence of delaying tactics.
We have made real progress on this Bill, and we are now discussing the fourth group of amendments. There is no justification for citing the Single European Act as a precedent. To spare the Foreign Secretary's blushes, although I suspect that he does not blush easily, I point out only in passing that he voted against the guillotine motion in 1986. It was wrong then, but apparently it is right now. That is hardly a basis for using that legislation as a precedent for the motion.
If we take all those matters together, it is clear that the timetable motion is the act of an arrogant Government, who ride roughshod over Parliament. It is the action of a Government prepared to unstitch our constitution without considering the long-term implications.
We all know that there is a nasty authoritarian streak in the Government. When their Members of the European Parliament speak out, they gag them. When their own Back Benchers get into difficulty, they ditch them. When Labour Members, on the Government's own Benches, vote with their conscience, they are reprimanded. The Government see their Back Benchers as mere cannon fodder, part of a factory farm production line. Under new Labour, only the spin doctors are free range.
It is a Government who think that nanny knows best, but it is the only nanny I know who hates her own children. I have no doubt that they will get their way tonight. They have such a large majority they can do what they like. It would be nice if the Liberal Democrats and Members of the other minor parties joined us in the Lobby. I should have thought that the Liberal Democrats were becoming ever more fearful of the Government's desire to control and bully, but I see that they have sold out to their coalition partners. Now we know what constructive opposition means: they do what they are told by the Minister without Portfolio.
The Minister of State is an honourable man. I do not want to ruin his career, but I want to say this to him: I like him. I shall not scream hysterically at him, but simply tell him that what he is doing tonight is wrong, and he knows it.
We have been conducting a constructive and positive scrutiny of a major treaty. It has had just 12 hours' debate, and in bringing down the guillotine so prematurely and unnecessarily, the Minister is sending a clear signal to the nation: the Government will stop at nothing to get their own way. Lone parents, the disabled, their own Back Benchers; the Government will trample over them all if it suits their wider political purposes, whatever they are.
What the Government are doing is wrong, and we shall oppose it.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): The Government have been accused of having an authoritarian streak. I know that the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) was not referring to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—although he could perhaps have been referring to my past. My answer to him is that the Government will have a majority tonight not because of an authoritarian streak but because we have a majority of the Members of the House, and because the majority of the British people want a Labour Government, and what that means for their life style.
My right hon. Friend said earlier that he looked forward to hearing "virtuous indignation" from the Conservatives. He has not been disappointed. We have heard the same empty arguments, the same double standards and the same Second Reading speeches as we have already heard in Committee, as well as on the original Second Reading.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made a telling point when he said that everything had been said, but everyone had not yet said it. That was so true of the Committee stage, and he has been right again about the contributions that we have heard tonight.
Like me, the hon. and learned Member knows that if there were no guillotine motion, the Bill would be sent into a siding because of the behaviour of Conservative Members. Those on the Opposition Front Bench may or may not believe that it would be in their interests to send the Bill into a siding. They may judge that the British people might misinterpret their motives were they to do that, when the present Government have achieved in the treaty aims that the previous Government wanted, but failed, to achieve.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Henderson: Not just now.
However, even if that were the judgment of the main Opposition spokesmen, they would not be able to deliver it to the House because they have no control over the hon. Members who sit behind them. I see the shadow Foreign Secretary smiling, and he has obviously acknowledged the point.

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Henderson: There have been double standards throughout the debate.

Mr. Blunt: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that he is speaking to a guillotine motion with the following:
DESIRING … to encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the European Union and to enhance their ability to express their views on matters which may be of particular interest to them"?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman raises the point, but—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The Government and the Labour party believe in parliamentary democracy,


but we will not have it obstructed by a few obstructive individuals on the Opposition Benches who are not prepared to accept the importance and relevance of the treaty of Amsterdam to the people of Britain.
As for double standards, I thought that the hon. Member for South-West Devon was a bit stupid to talk about my opposition to a guillotine in 1994, because at that time he opposed my position, and voted for the guillotine.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I sat opposite each other many times during the last Parliament when we were dealing with home affairs. It is a bit rich for him to argue against a guillotine on the Amsterdam treaty, when he supported the 82 guillotine motions that the Conservative Government introduced during that Parliament.

Mr. Howard: Eighty five.

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there were 85. In the Parliament before that, he imposed a guillotine on the poll tax legislation. I served on the Committee considering water privatisation, which was also guillotined. It is again a bit rich for him to say that we should not vote for a guillotine on the treaty of Amsterdam, when he voted for a guillotine on the Single European Act in 1986. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that that was a far more damning guillotine motion than the one before us.
If the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen had come to me to discuss a timetable for the Bill, we would have had ample time to debate the various aspects. I consider that the three days in Committee that we have already had, plus the prospect of a further two days, is a reasonable amount of time.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: No, I shall not give way.
Five days in Committee plus one day on Second Reading is a reasonable time to dispose of the issues involved in the Bill.

Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition made such an offer on the Government of Wales Bill, but the Government rejected it out of hand?
When will the Minister answer the question that I posed to the Foreign Secretary? Will he identify one of the three criteria that, according to the Home Secretary, must be satisfied before a guillotine can be justified? I did not oppose the motion on the basis that we can never have a guillotine: I said that it must be justified on one of the three criteria. Which of those criteria is relevant to this guillotine motion?

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows of my close association with the Home Secretary, and I can tell him that all the Home Secretary's criteria apply to the Bill. The House must deal with this legislation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, his

colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench and the more experienced Conservative Members behind him know that if there were no guillotine, there would be no prospect of the Bill seeing the light of day in any reasonable time.
This is an important issue, and we must try to allow the right amount of time to debate it. I am sympathetic to timetabling motions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from my days in opposition that I was prepared to reach agreement on a timetable to allow practical discussion of the issues involved. The Conservative Government knew that if they had a deal with us on the timetabling of legislation, that deal stuck, because we were a united Opposition. The problem for the present Opposition is that even if they wanted to deliver a deal, they could not do so, because they cannot deliver the votes of Conservative Members.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, this is an important Bill, because it provides real benefits for the people of this country. The treaty gives, for the first time, explicit legal authority for Britain to retain its border controls; it confirms NATO as the cornerstone of our defence; it provides a fuller, legally binding basis for the principle of subsidiarity; it provides for tougher action on fraud against the Community budget; and it obliges the European Union to give greater priority to protecting the environment, promoting openness in its proceedings, and to tackling unemployment. I say again to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it also extends to an issue that was well debated before the general election and on which the Government have an explicit mandate from the electorate—the social chapter, which extends to workers in this country the same rights as workers in other parts of Europe.
As was made clear on Second Reading, the Bill has the support of the House. The Government have a mandate for their programme. We have a duty to put into effect our legislative proposals and to make sure that the legislation and other measures are not frustrated by a small number of Opposition Members. We shall make sure that we exercise that responsibility, and we ask the House to support the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 144.

Division No. 123]
[11.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Bennett, Andrew F


Allan, Richard
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Best, Harold


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Betts, Clive


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blackman, Liz


Ashton, Joe
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob


Atkins, Charlotte
Boateng, Paul


Austin, John
Borrow, David


Baker, Norman
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Banks, Tony
Bradshaw, Ben


Barnes, Harry
Brake, Tom


Battle, John
Brand, Dr Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Beard, Nigel
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Browne, Desmond


Begg, Miss Anne
Buck, Ms Karen






Burgon, Colin
Fyfe, Maria


Byers, Stephen
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Norman A


Casale, Roger
Goggins, Paul


Caton, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cawsey, Ian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Grogan, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hain, Peter


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Kate


Cooper, Yvette
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hope, Phil


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cotter, Brian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hutton, John


Davidson, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dowd, Jim



Drew, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Etherington, Bill
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Fatchett, Derek
Kemp, Fraser


Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Flint, Caroline
Kidney, David


Flynn, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foulkes, George
Ladyman, Dr Stephen





Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prosser, Gwyn


Laxton, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lepper, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Leslie, Christopher
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Raynsford, Nick


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Linton, Martin
Rendel, David


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Livsey, Richard
(Hamilton S)


Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCabe, Steve
Rowlands, Ted


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McFall, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


McNamara, Kevin
Savidge, Malcolm


McNulty, Tony
Sawford, Phil


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mallaber, Judy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Spellar, John


Michael, Alun
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moore, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stringer, Graham


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Swinney, John


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mudie, George
(Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Norris, Dan
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Timms, Stephen


O'Neill, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Öpik, Lembit
Todd, Mark


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Palmer, Dr Nick
Touhig, Don


Pearson, Ian
Trickett, Jon


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Plaskitt, James
Tyler, Paul


Pope, Greg
Vaz, Keith


Pound, Stephen
Vis, Dr Rudi


Powell, Sir Raymond
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Primarolo, Dawn
Webb, Steve






White, Brian
Wood, Mike


Wicks, Malcolm
Wray, James


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


(Swansea W)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. David Jamieson.


Wise, Audrey





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Jenkin, Bernard


Baldry, Tony
Johnson Smith,


Beggs, Roy
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bercow, John
Key, Robert


Beresford, Sir Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Blunt, Crispin
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Body, Sir Richard
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Boswell, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lansley, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Leigh, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Letwin, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lidington, David


Bums, Simon
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Cash, William
Luff, Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


(Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Madel, Sir David


(Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Mates, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cran, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Curry, Rt Hon David
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Norman, Archie


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paterson, Owen


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Flight, Howard
Robathan, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fraser, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Soames, Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Green, Damian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Greenway, John
Steen, Anthony


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hayes, John
Thompson, William


Heald, Oliver
Townend, John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Trend, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Viggers, Peter





Walter, Robert
Wilshire, David


Wardle, Charles
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Waterson, Nigel
Woodward, Shaun


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. John Whittingdale.


Willetts, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill:—

Committee of the whole House

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee shall be completed in two allotted days.
(2) At the sitting on the first allotted day, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected and
(b) which would insert after '9' at line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to paragraph 40 of Article 2 of the Treaty,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Seven o'clock.

(3) At the sitting on that day proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b)which would insert at the end of line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to Article 2(3)(b) of the Treaty,
shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Nine o'clock.

(4) At the sitting on the second allotted day, any remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 and 2 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Six o'clock.

(5) At that sitting, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.

Proceedings on going into Committee

2 When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

3 On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Report and Third Reading

4 The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Conclusion of proceedings

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 4, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;


(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion,
and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Order of proceedings

6. No motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Interruption of business

8. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour—


(a)proceedings under paragraph 5(1);
(b)proceedings to which paragraph 5(2) or (3) applies;
(c)proceedings under paragraph 10(1).

Business Committee

9. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) If at the sitting on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraphs 1 or 4, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Recommittal

11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day;
the Treaty" means the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts.

STANDING ORDERS (ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT)

Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee) be amended in line 9 by leaving out the word 'fifteen' and inserting the word 'sixteen'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

EU-Israel Association Agreement

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The trigger for this debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady is addressing the House. Will hon. Members please leave quietly?

Dr. Starkey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The trigger for this debate is the revelation earlier this year that Israel was effectively fiddling the books and attempting to subvert the interim trade agreement with the European Union by passing off as "made in Israel" goods that have been manufactured elsewhere. Under the terms of the agreement, Israel has a quota for goods—including orange juice, which is allowed into the EU at zero tariff—and 70 per cent. of the normal tariff is charged on additional imports beyond the quota.
It emerged that Brazilian orange juice had been imported into Israel, relabelled as "made in Israel" and exported to the EU at zero tariff. The presumption is that Israel wished to maintain its quota for future use, while choosing to sell its orange juice more profitably elsewhere. Whatever the reason, that is clearly a deliberate defrauding of the EU. It would be helpful if the Minister could estimate the loss to the EU in duties forgone.
The EU had had suspicions that goods from Israel had been mislabelled and it therefore took a serious view of the latest infringement. Detailed investigations uncovered further abuses. Orange juice from illegal settlements in Gaza had been similarly mislabelled. On 8 November, the EU issued a warning. Part of it says:
The specific situation is aggravated by the fact that since the inquiry got under way, various elements have come to light which confirm a lack of effective administrative cooperation, as foreseen in the different preferential agreements signed between the Community and Israel, and in particular certain substantial errors in the application of those same agreements, to the extent that the validity of all preferential certificates issued by Israel, for all products, are put in doubt.
As a result, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has been carrying out investigations into the true origin of a wide range of Israeli exports to the United Kingdom-including, for example, textile waste and telecommunications equipment.
Interestingly, today I have received an answer from the Treasury showing that further inquiries by Customs and Excise
relating to a range of manufactured goods have been suspended following undertakings given by Israel at a meeting with EC officials on 28 November".
I should like the Minister to clarify what those undertakings can possibly be, given Israel's misleading behaviour until now.
In previous discussions in the House on the interim trade agreement with Israel, hon. Members have repeatedly raised concerns about similar false origination certificates relating to Israeli products—in particular, goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories

being passed off as Israeli goods. In 1989, the then Foreign Office Minister reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), now Secretary of State for International Development, that there were no arrangements for produce originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to enjoy preferential access to the British market.
In the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, which examined the interim agreement in February 1997, the former Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) restated their concern about false description and again were reassured by the Minister. It is now clear that those suspicions were justified and that the reassurances have not been borne out.
On 28 November, in response to the latest dispute between the EU and Israel, the Israeli trade and industry minister, Natan Sharansky, admitted in the Israeli press that there had been past transgressions, but attempted in effect to buy off the EU by allowing it additional checks within Israel. That is the clearest possible evidence that the Israelis are playing fast and loose with the EU.
Perhaps I may digress slightly, as we need to understand the EU's purpose in negotiating association agreements. The association agreement with Israel is one of a series of Euro-Med agreements intended to strengthen economic links with the region. There is a similar agreement with the Palestinian National Authority. The interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters deals essentially with the trade provisions of a full association agreement, pending full ratification of that full agreement.
Access to European Union markets is a privilege given in return for Israel and the Palestinian National Authority participating positively in the middle east peace process. Again, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made that clear in February 1997 when he said:
Support for the middle east peace process is the cornerstone of United Kingdom and European Union policy in the region … Liberalisation of trade will contribute to prosperity and thus to regional stability … The EU's agreement with Israel and the PLO will help to increase prosperity in the region."—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 19 February 1997; c. 4.]
In recognition of the linkage of trade preferences to progress in the middle east peace process, two specific articles—1 and 38—were included in the interim association. Article 1 obligates Israel and the European Union to respect human rights and democratic principles. Article 38 obliges Israel to refrain from representing products of its illegal settlements in the occupied territories as originating in Israel or, indeed, certifying Palestinian products exported by Israeli firms as products of Israel.
There have been numerous examples of breaches of article 1, which deals with human rights and democratic principles. There have been collective punishments of the Palestinian population in response to individual acts by Palestinians. There have been repeated land confiscations, denial of access to Jerusalem for most Palestinians, and a system of internal controls for Palestinians akin to the pass controls of apartheid in South Africa. Some people's Jerusalem ID has been cancelled so that they can no longer live in Jerusalem.
It is now clear that article 38 has also been regularly breached. In effect, Israel is pretending to participate in the peace process. It is blocking progress and failing to implement agreements already made, but it is preventing the outright collapse of discussions. At the same time, it is continuing to build illegal settlements in the occupied territories, often based on export-oriented agricultural enterprises, and using those settlements to cement its territorial expansion.
The other half of Israeli policy is to choke the growth of the nascent Palestinian economy through internal and external closures. Since the Oslo accords, there have effectively been closures on one day out of three. These closures are paralysing Palestinian trade and have led to the direct loss of at least 100,000 jobs. The United Nations special co-ordinator's office for the occupied territories has estimated that real wage levels in the area controlled by the Palestinian National Authority fell by about 20 per cent. in 1996 and that the real per capita gross national product had fallen by 38.8 per cent. since 1992.
When I was in the middle east in the summer, I saw and heard for myself the effect of that policy. In Gaza, for instance, tomatoes produced there were rotting during the closures because they could not be exported to the rest of the Palestinian National Authority controlled area. Meanwhile, people living in Ramallah were being forced to pay 70 times more than market rates to get hold of tomatoes.
In addition, the Israelis were operating punitive controls on goods from Gaza to Egypt on spurious security grounds. I say "spurious" because the goods were not transiting through Israel but were going direct from Gaza to Egypt. There were reports of boxes of carnations being pierced with check rods, supposedly to check whether there were weapons inside. Of course, that damaged the carnations and made them wholly unsaleable. While such punitive controls are operating, Palestinian goods supplied to Israeli marketing firms are strangely exempted from such treatment.
The economic agreement that the European Union has made with Israel, which should be bolstering peace, is undercutting it. By providing markets for products from illegal settlements, we and the rest of the European Union are positively encouraging the development and sustaining of those settlements—settlements that are sabotaging the peace process not only for the present Israeli Government but for future Israeli Governments. The Israelis are being allowed to enjoy the economic dividend without making any progress on peace. The current Israeli Government have retreated on progress, and the Palestinians are paying—in unemployment, in business bankruptcies and in land confiscations.
The further irony is that the European Union taxpayer is also paying the price, because donor aid from the European Union, which should be supporting economic development in the Palestinian National Authority area, is paying to offset the economic damage of the Israeli blockade on the Palestinian economy.
The Israelis' response to being found out defrauding the European Union has been to bluster and challenge the definition of the geographical area to which the agreement applies. On 10 December 1997, Ha'aretz said:
Israel's representative to the European Union in Brussels, Ephraim Halevy, emphasised that … the subject of territoriality with respect to the rules of origin is a political question and that

Israel strongly objects to its inclusion in its discussions with the Union, 'because it's not the European Union who is going to determine the borders of Israel as an incidental by-product of economic discussions."'
We must say that that is not acceptable. The European Union has made it clear throughout that the agreement applies only to the internationally recognised borders of Israel.
The UK position was reiterated, in March 1997, by Jeremy Hanley, then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in a letter to the former Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale. He wrote:
The British Government's position on Jerusalem is well known, and is shared by all our EU partners … we do not recognise Israeli (de jure) sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. It follows that goods produced in Jerusalem are not the produce of Israel … A similar logic would apply to goods produced in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories".
The European Union simply cannot allow Israel unilaterally to reinterpret the terms of an agreement with the European Union. Moreover, that agreement is a privilege, not a right, and gives an advantage to Israel in return for co-operation in the peace process—a process which Israel seems to have no intention of delivering. If the European taxpayer is not to continue to be taken for a ride, the British Government and the European Union will have to take a firm stand.
The agreement has not yet been ratified, and I should be grateful if the Minister will indicate when it is due to be ratified. I very much hope that he will make it clear that the EU-Israel association agreement cannot be finally approved by the Council of Ministers until cast-iron guarantees are given that Israel will comply with the European Union's interpretation of article 38 and with the definition of what constitutes the state of Israel.
The European Union has to spell out the fact that international law—not the force of conquest—decides what is occupied and what is not, and that Israel must comply with international law and provide absolutely watertight guarantees that only goods made within the internationally agreed borders of Israel will be able to enjoy the privileges that the European Union is prepared to give.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on raising these issues, and on the way in which she presented her case. Although the House's attendance is somewhat limited at this late hour, I have no doubt that every hon. Member in the Chamber has been impressed with the way in which she has expressed and dealt with some extremely detailed and important issues. I therefore congratulate her doubly on her speech.
I shall make a few opening comments about the nature of the association agreement and the processes that relate to my hon. Friend's final point. I shall then attempt to deal with some of the technical issues relating to countries of origin before moving onto the peace process and Britain's presidency of the European Union. I hope to do all that in the few minutes that I have to speak.
The EU-Israel association agreement was signed in November 1995. It was ratified by Israel and most EU member states early in the process. The United


Kingdom completed its ratification on 8 April this year, after the debate in Committee on 19 February to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to draw attention to one extremely important point: the reason why virtually all right hon. and hon. Members considered it sensible for the United Kingdom to ratify the agreement was that there had been progress in relation to Hebron. As a result, all parties were agreed that the House should give the association agreement a fair wind. My hon. Friend was right to say that, at the time, our attitude to ratification was coloured by our attitude to the progress in the middle east peace process.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that two EU member states—France and Belgium—have not completed their domestic processes of ratification. We expect both countries to have done so in the first half of 1998, although the procedures relate to parliamentary processes in those countries. It is possible that the processes will not have been completed during the United Kingdom presidency, but that depends on the two countries concerned.
My hon. Friend then asked about the attitude of the Council of Ministers to the association agreement and its final ratification. Progress on the middle east peace process would certainly help discussions in the Council of Ministers. It would greatly improve the atmosphere and prove beneficial to Israel.
It may be useful if, before turning to the technical issues, I set out the Government's views on where we are on the peace process, and how we would like it to progress. My hon. Friend is right to say that, post-Oslo, the Palestinians have gained little economic reward from the peace process—indeed, quite the opposite. The figure she quoted in terms of the reduction in living standards for Palestinians may be conservative. Some would suggest that the figure may be as high as 40 per cent.
I realise that political and economic processes do not work together in a simple causal relationship, but if we are to show that peace works, we also have to show that it produces economic rewards. It is abundantly clear that the Palestinians should have more than their fair share of those rewards, simply because of their circumstances and the differential in incomes in the middle east.
My hon. Friend was also right to say that the process is currently stalled. We have taken an active role in trying to encourage the restart of the process. Earlier this year, we were concerned when it appeared that the peace process was no longer engaged, and there was no prospect of progress. We have encouraged the United States to become actively involved and we very much welcome the steps that Secretary of State Albright has taken to try to bring the parties together and get the process going.
It is always worth reminding ourselves that the peace process is the only show in town—the only way in which we shall make progress, and the only way in which Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region will have the opportunity to live together in peace, security and justice. The peace process is important to us all, regardless of the way in which we approach the issues, and from whatever standpoint we come.
We have been pressing the Israeli Government to ensure that the offer on the table will re-create some confidence in the peace process. We have suggested the

need for progress and action in the following areas. We believe that there is a need for what Secretary of State Albright has called "time out", and that no action should be taken that determines or predetermines the final status negotiations.
Our view on settlements comes into that process. We are clear that the settlements are illegal, and are an attempt to pre-empt final status negotiations. We have also said that there should be further substantial redeployment. The figures will be subject to negotiation, but the redeployment must be real, qualitative and quantitative. It has to ensure that it rebuilds confidence in the process.
We also believe that there need to be further confidence-building measures, and we have constantly drawn attention to the need to make progress on the proposals for the airport and the port—both of which will feed strongly into the economic issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West referred. We also believe that there is a need to ensure free and safe passage so that the situations that my hon. Friend described do not happen and the peace process and the political and economic issues are not undermined. We have made it clear to the Israeli Government that there should not be action that squeezes the Palestinians and their civic society out of Jerusalem, because that would also pre-empt the final status negotiations.
We have made that position clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister delivered that message to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and it has been delivered by other European Union leaders. We hope to see progress in the current round of negotiations.
As I am sure some of my hon. Friends will know, President Arafat is in London tomorrow. We hope that he will be engaging in a successful negotiation through Secretary of State Albright, and that we will be able to make the progress to which I referred. It is important—we recognise this—that, in the context of the peace process, there is a commitment to security on both sides. We need peace; we need security. Both sides have obligations. We are stressing the need for those obligations to be carried out.
The United Kingdom will assume the European Union presidency within two weeks. We are determined to be active in that presidency in our role in the middle east. We feel that we can play an important part by ensuring that the European voice is heard and that our aspirations and concerns are expressed in the peace process.
We are also determined to act as complementary support and help to the United States in the peace process, because—I repeat the point that I made earlier—we all have a reason to ensure that the process is successful. Over the next six months of our presidency, we are determined to play an active and constructive role. Hopefully, we can move on some of the peace-related issues, so that we can move towards the justice with peace and security to which my hon. Friend referred.
I should like to take this opportunity to deal with some of the more detailed issues to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. She talked about the question of orange juice and Israel's breach of country-of-origin rules. I reassure her that the Council of Ministers is very aware of the issue, very concerned about it, and wants appropriate action to be taken. It is clearly unacceptable that Israel—or any country—is in breach of an agreement with the European Union.
It is clear from the available evidence that there has been a breach, and that action needs to be taken. The Commission is following up the matter with Israel, and we hope that they will reach a proper solution in the near future. That solution must be a recognition that "country of origin" means exactly that, and that the rules are clear and cannot be bent. The rules must be honoured, because they are part of an agreement between Israel and the European Union.
My hon. Friend also asked whether it was possible for Israel to redefine its borders under international law, as part of the EU association agreement. I hope that I made the point earlier that our position on that is clear—indeed, it was shared by the previous Government—and we regard the settlements as illegal.
The final boundaries and the final status issues have to be negotiated between the parties, but we do not recognise the settlements under international law, and we have said so on many occasions. The trade association agreement cannot redefine Israel's boundaries, and all the issues must be resolved through the final status negotiations. The position is clear under international law, to us and to other countries, and we will continue to restate our position on the settlements as part of the overall process.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of human rights as part of the broader association agreement. Whenever I visit any country in the middle east, or in any other part of the world, I take the opportunity to raise human rights issues. Human rights are universal: they are not a la carte, and we cannot choose which countries we want to enforce human rights. We must consider each and every country in relation to a universal respect for human

rights. That is true for Israel, for the Palestine National Authority and for other countries. I can give my hon. Friend the clear reassurance that we will continue to raise human rights issues on every visit to the region.
My hon. Friend rightly raised specific issues, but the important issue for us all is to make progress in the middle east peace process. I do not believe that any hon. Member, from either side of the House, wishes to see the process stalled, because, if that happens, the risks are obvious and substantial. We all know that we face a difficult and delicate situation. My plea to all those involved is to make progress, through any necessary concessions, and to recognise the needs of all the parties directly involved in the negotiation. No one can seek to stop the world, get off and freeze the process, because that will not work.
We need to negotiate on the basis that the way to bring a lasting peace to the middle east is to recognise the genuine needs of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. If we can do that, the prize is substantial. It is a sad reflection that a region so rich in people and natural resources, and with a culture that is so diverse and yet so important to the history of the world, under-performs both economically and politically.
If we can get the peace right, the middle east can move forward. If we can play a part in that process in the next six months, during our presidency of the European Union, we will make a real. and lasting contribution. We all wish to make progress, and to see peace, justice and security in that region.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve midnight.